Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernadette Banner

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Bernadette Banner}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Bernadette Banner}})

Non-notable dressmaker. Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete "In a notable incident, one of her hand-made dresses was poorly copied and sold by an online company for a fraction of the cost that Banner made it."??? Just no. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

:: Wired seems to consider it important enough [https://www.wired.com/story/youtube-instagram-influencers-stolen-faces/ to write much of an article on]. I agree the phrasing is poor (the incident itself isn't notable by Wikipedia's definition), but that doesn't mean that it's not encyclopedic information. Gbear605 (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep The subject is an acknowledged expert in her field and has a substantial following. They therefore pass the spirit of guidelines such as WP:ARTIST and WP:ENT. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

:An acknowledged sewing expert? Notable? Haha. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

::{{u|Roxy the dog}}, the field is not sewing but dress history. Gbear605 (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

:::Look at what she does. She's skilled for a youngster, but not notable. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. We need to look into the whole Youtuber notability to address all those gray areas of notability. But until then I think this should be deleted. Kolma8 (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as page creator. Easily meets WP:BASIC - has significant coverage in multiple published independent reliable sources. For a couple examples, see [https://hyperallergic.com/535278/bernadette-banner-youtube-dress-historian/ this interview] (see the notability section at WP:INTERVIEW) and the coverage in [https://www.wired.com/story/historical-youtube/ this W article]. There is more coverage [https://www.themarysue.com/youtuber-breaks-down-five-movies-that-nailed-their-historical-costumes/ in this article] that I didn't include because I didn't want to spend time analyzing their policies, but upon further investigation they meet the requirements at WP:RELIABLE. There is more coverage elsewhere (for instance in Teen Vogue) that doesn't meet reliability guidelines but still suggests at notability. Gbear605 (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

:Pinging {{u|DGG}} as the AfC approver. Gbear605 (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm quite skeptical in this field, but we need to increase our coverage of the many people in the field who are actually notable -- our coverage in fashion is usually based on other considerations--as a rough guess I think at least half the articles in Category:Fashion biography stubs are either trivial or promotional. . I hesitated before approving this one, but she's probably notable as a costume historian, and Wired is a respectable source. In working with borderline AfCs the role of a reviewer is not to actually judge notability, because it's often possible to make a good argument in either direction, but only try to predict what AFD will do. I accepted on the basis that most borderline articles about people on the web with more than one Wired source seem to be usually kept at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe that this page is valid for keeping because her notability does not only apply to YouTube but also to her current profession as a recognised dress historian and prior work as an assistant designer on Broadway. I believe that the page definitely needs a lot of work, and more information could be included (such as her prior Broadway work) to further exemplify her notability and the validity of the page, but I think that the pages' existence is perfectly valid. PunkAndromeda (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as she is a notable historian in a niche that is seeing increasing amounts of attention in recent years. This study of historical attire is important; Banner studies it inside out, applies those methods, and imparts her knowledge to a large following. Enough coverage is in the article and it looks like more relevant coverage is above. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

::To clarify for those who can't glean it, she meets GNG. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Has anybody got any "policy-based" keep arguments? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• {{u|Roxy the dog}}, is WP:BASIC not enough? Do you disagree that there is enough coverage? Gbear605 (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• BASIC says, - "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" - so yes, I disagree, WP:BASIC is not satisfied. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• The Hyperallergic interview and the Mary Sue article are solely about Banner, and there is non trivial coverage of her in most of the other sources, including in Wired and the BBC. They're all independent reliable sources and together they easily prove notability. Gbear605 (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: Per reasons above. Article easily passes WP:BASIC, especially with sources indicated by Gbear605. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep I think the YouTube element is a red herring. It's simply a promotional channel, but with or without it, her work still has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I believe she's notable. StarM 00:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.