Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Ida Thornton

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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Ida Thornton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-styled 'Jean Queen', a statement placed in press via interviews, releases and company statements. This article is a (declared, to be fair) paid placement and shows it - sourcing is purely to non-RS (HuffPo, blogs etc), to company statements and interviews. If an announcement that you've bought a hotel with your husband in 'The Caterer' is your best shot at RS, you're in trouble. It's not good enough to pass WP:GNG and needs to go, pronto. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, United Arab Emirates, and Australia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Huffington Post is a RS (although I tend to avoid it purely because they closed the Canadian version right after they unionized...), but what's used for the article here is a contributor's bio. British Vogue is either her giving an interview or used as a "taking head/subject matter expert" in an article about jeans. She seems to have a ton of coverage, but nothing found for GNG, yet. I feel like it's there, somewhere. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete I've been through 18 pages of Google search and all it has is fashion advice on how to wear jeans or leather after 50 or similar vapid articles. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BASIC, search results are not all "fashion advice on how to wear jeans or leather after 50 or similar vapid articles", and notability is not based on subjective preference. There are sources over time that support her notability, e.g. Donna Ida's New Direction (Vogue, 2017, interview with secondary context), Interview, Fashion: Donna Ida Thornton (The Scotsman, 2017, includes secondary context, including career and biographical info), She Wears It Well: Jean genie Donna Ida Thornton on how to make denim work for every occasion (The Telegraph, 2017, includes secondary commentary about her), Is The Low-Rise Jean Back? (British Vogue, 2014, includes secondary context related to her collection), Into the fray: jeans and the no-hem-hemline (Guardian, 2016, quoted for opinion), How to wear leggings the grownup way (Guardian, 2015, quoted for opinion). Beccaynr (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Marginal, but agree with Beccaynr that the page passes WP:BASIC. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Like it or not, she is an expert on jeans and wearing jeans. There are enough articles with her advice on wearing jeans to meet WP:GNG. There is also enough coverage of the changes in her brand over time to meet the (WP:BASIC) notability requirements of Wikipedia. ~~~~
  • Somehow the signature was lost there. Let me try again DaffodilOcean (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Beccanyr. Deus et lex (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2022 (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.