The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Concerns about not meeting WP:GNG, and violating WP:OR and WP:SYN have not been adequately refuted. A convincing set of reliable sources on the subject has not been provided. Many keep voters express that the article should be rewritten from scratch. While there is consensus to delete the current version of this article, there should be no prejudice against re-creating the article as long as it is a scholarly article based on solid, reliable sources (assuming that is possible). In the meantime, I will redirect the article to Faux pas. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 18:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion faux pas[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fashion faux pas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N/WP:GNG: no coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources Curb Chain (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I can't. Therefore keep, because whatever is wrong with this article's quality, that's all firmly in the territory of WP:SOFIXIT and there's no reason I can stick a pin in that allows me to delete this. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically from WP:USEFUL:
While I do accept it fails WP:GNG, I think an argument can be made that the article is useful for bringing together a collection of marginally notable concepts, each of which falls into the same category. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of the concepts can be considered a fashion faux pas because they are not categorized as such by multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Note the last citation you mentioned, it uses it as an adjective: the compound word is only found in the headline (of the article) so it does not discuss "fashion faux pas" in depth.Curb Chain (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the other sources you cite discuss "fashion faux pas" in depth.Curb Chain (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean the second one, right? The last is the name of a product. I did say each gave the term a passing mention rather than any form of in-depth coverage and I certainly wouldn't consider any of them to be reliable sources. I also acknowledged that it probably doesn't pass WP:GNG as a result. This is probably a bit closer to usable - it actually gives a definition for the term. But that won't be enough to meet WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the 1st, 2nd, and now this 4th one also. If they don't meet WP:GNG then your opinion on "Weak keep" is kind of void IMO.Curb Chain (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My weak keep opinion was based on the fact that I thought a usefulness argument could be made and I still believe it can. It's not a vote, it's a WP:CONSENSUS and an administrator will need to decide if a consensus has been reached or not. I imagine if I'm the only one making a usefulness argument and everyone else strongly disagrees then consensus will be reached outside my contribution anyway. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That argument is not useful here (pun unintended). Articles are kept on the basis of notability and the list of examples are not sourced and probably impossible to source. To be honest, the collation of examples is a clear breach of WP:SYN.Curb Chain (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And they can also be kept on the basis of usefulness - "usefulness can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion". I don't think they are impossible to source - In 200x, David Beckham was described as having committed a "fashion faux pas" when he wore socks and sandals...[cite]. I just think if we cut this one up and send each section back to their respective articles (socks and sandals to socks and sandals) or merge the whole thing into dress code we're going to create an unwieldy page / set of pages and we'll end up back at AfC in a few months time. Again, my position was weak keep and I won't die in a ditch over it - just my opinion. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A claim of "it can be sourced" sound more like "i can write whatever I want, eventually it will be sourced". Hardly a reason for usefulness.Curb Chain (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's really two different arguments. I didn't suggest "it can be sourced" (not sure where that quote is from), in fact I conceded it didn't meet WP:GNG. However, I believe the article is useful enough to merit inclusion. You are, as I said, free to disagree. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You said that you don't think they are impossible to source suggesting they can be sourced. Being useful, well most thing are useful, but that we don't include everything on the planet.Curb Chain (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that was in relation to the individual examples listed therein, not the subject of the article. The usefulness argument is in relation to the subject itself - a collation of those individual examples. Sorry, perhaps I should have made that clearer. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The existence of available sources means the article can be rehabilitated, and so should not be deleted. "Existence" does not mean presence in the article already. Further, the exact phrase "fashion faux pas" is not required to be present exactly like that in every source, as the nominator appears to be arguing: it can be a paraphrase, as long as the notion of a faux pas related to fashion is clearly made. Also definitions need not be explicitly stated, because, yes, sources differ in their individual opinions about an instance of a faux pas, but they can all be found to agree about the nature of what one is. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary, and in fact we do not cite dictionaries as sources, as they are WP:TERTIARY sources, just like Wikipedia, who derive their reliability from that of their sources, just as we do. Some deletions were arguably valid (JPG source), but some deletions were arguably not valid: cited author, blog under newspaper/magazine, or "not notable". This deletion removed arguably relevant cited content, deemed "not notable" - WP:N, in its first page, specifically states that it is not a criterion for inclusion of content of articles, only entire articles themselves. Since there is a distinct possibility, assuming good faith, that the adding editors were unclear on the concept that RS means prose, not images. Because this article already survived one AfD, this is an issue of editor education, not deletion of a non-notable topic by any means. I agree with User:Colapeninsula's wish that this article be dramatically improved, re-written, and its scope widened beyond the tabloid/celebrity focus. Therefore, I advocate keep, with revisiting in, say, 3 or 6 months. --Lexein (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TERTIARY sources are permissible in a limited fashion such as providing definitions but cannot be used extensively to write whole articles. It is a common mistake so not to worry. The bottom line is that your claim that we do not cite tertiary sources is not true. Regarding "... a notion ..."/the nature of a "fashion faux pas", Yes, we DO need a definition as all the examples are otherwise original research. That deletion was because it was an entry of trivia so I deleted it. In anycase I did not quote WP:N in the edit summary as if I was referring to that protocol for my reason for removing that prose. Are you saying that every nominator who renominates an article for deletion should take some sort of course? And should the nominator go through this course after the 3 or 6 months if s/he decides it should be deleted?Curb Chain (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But part of making Wikipedia useful is to have indexes, lists, portals, summaries, and overviews that refer you to individual articles. How is putting it in jeans and a dozen other articles going to help people who want to know about fashion faux pas? Wikipedia isn't just about squeezing in information somewhere, it's about making information available to people. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd believe you if you gave me some consistent reliable sources.Curb Chain (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response toColapeninsula (talk) above, putting here as it's a new comment:

I can see a weak case for a general article on the subject, but I can't really see it being much more than the definition "someone somewhere is wearing something that other people don't think should be worn". Which could be practically anything, anywhere really. One source will say faux pas, another source will say not... Fashion is so contradictory like that." Mabalu (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Patently wrong. Not everyone who wants to delete the article agrees that it is an encyclopedic topic and it isn't.Curb Chain (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add my dissent to Curb Chain's: this is not an encyclopedia topic—it's a dictionary definition. Ammodramus (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yours is a common misunderstanding of WP:NOTDIC. There are also those who said that anything related to fashion is just unencyclopedic opinion; that's simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Criticism in fashion (such as pointing out "faux pas") can be treated encyclopedically. What is needed are wp:secondary and preferably academic sources. (They exist, but are pretty hard to find among the deluge of fashion magazines, e.g. [8] has a discussion.) This article should be deleted because it relies exclusively on wp:primary sources (where it cites any sources at all). There ware way too many expressions of opinion about one or other fashion "faux pas" out there (something that's actually said in the source I just gave you, ha!), so an article constructed from primary sources would indeed be rather wp:indiscriminate. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced and unsource-able is a reason for deletion. Needing better quality sources (which provably exist) is not a good WP:DEL-REASON, right there on the policy page. --Lexein (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale meets the letter of the policy: as "any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". If you'd rather discuss the contents of the article instead of wikilawyering, I'm open to substantive dialogue. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not patently wrong: Enough deleters agree that "is encyclopedic", to simply keep and improve.See also WP:DEL-REASON. --Lexein (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is patently wrong, as I see none of the deleters used the phrase "is encyclopedic".Curb Chain (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's up to what reliable sources say on the topic, and there are plenty of them. See my Keep, above. Present flaws aside, there are reliable, and even scholarly, resources on the subject, therefore, deletion is not WP:DEL-REASON called for. If RS relevant sources exist, keep, even if one must grit one's teeth. --Lexein (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I still don't see any really good sources that could bring this article to anything more than a dictionary definition. You could have historical examples, I guess, but I hope we can at least agree the current ones need to go? I mean, I think socks and sandals are just fine, why is it a fashion screw up? Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 06:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More