Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covet Fashion

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. asilvering (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covet Fashion

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

lacks significant coverage from reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Loewstisch (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete VICE is major significant coverage, and I found additional SIGCOV here in this physical book, but Venture Beat seems more like an interview/primary source. I am not seeing GNG being passed here. If others discover more, I am willing to change my opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was able to find this article from Fortune, but it requires a subscription to read so I'm unable to assess if it's significant coverage or not. I also found another interview from Venture Beat and short coverage from Bleeding Cool about a New York Fashion Week update - I don't think these really demonstrate notability but they may be useful for a 'development' section if article is kept. Waxworker (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep the coverage in Fortune appears to be an article solely on the topic. The Vice article is clearly above the WP:N bar. The Bleeding Cool one is probably above the bar for "significant". That's 2 or 3 sources, all of which are solely focused on the topic. The other sources have decent information, but appear to be press releases or otherwise primary. Hobit (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little significant coverage comfortably independent of the subject. The Fortune, VentureBeat and Vice articles provide significant coverage, but are interspersed closely with interviews and many read like profiles of the business achievements of their creator. The Fortune article reveals itself to be part of a "daily newsletter on the world’s most powerful women", and as you read you get the sense that all its information comes from the developer as the source, which flatters her immensely: "Like any good marketer, Ethington knows her product intimately". Gita Jackson of Vice recounts herself attending a Fashion Week event held by Covet and: surprise! Both she and Covet seem very keen to name drop sponsor fashion brand Badgley Mischka front and centre, as Fuchs says: "“I think Covet provides an opportunity for people to experience Badgley Mischka that wouldn’t otherwise have that opportunity". The other articles, like Bleeding Cool and Disney News, are ephemera around game updates. Needs something a little more evaluative and removed from the creators to suggest it's not held up by puff pieces. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We agree that the coverage in those three sources is significant. Those sources are occasionally fawning but their coverage of the game is solidly over the bar AND found in mainstream media, something unusual for an app. We can add in things like [1] and lots of things like [2] (not in depth, but certainly showing the raw breadth of coverage). Hobit (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources identified from Waxworker and even Zxcvbnm should be more than enough to pass GNG. They're clearly in-depth, relevant and provide more than enough info to expand this article. Also, I mostly disagree with the assertion that the sources are of dubious independence. While some of them do contain various statements and information from the creators themselves, they're also interspersed with plenty of secondary coverage akin to actual journalism.

I think a pretty common misconception is that a source that uses primary info is inherently primary or non-independent in nature. Secondary sources are allowed to use these types of sources from a topic occasionally. What makes them truly secondary is the commentary and analysis of said sources, and I believe there's enough of both from the Fortune and Vice pieces to circumvent any concerns regarding their independence. Both sources clearly contextualize the game with the fashion industry while offering background info on the game's creation and creators. The Fortune piece may touch a bit more on the creator than the game, but it reveals pertinent and factual statements regarding its gameplay, style and freemium payment model, which is the type of encyclopedic coverage one would expect for any game.

Also, Gita Jackson is a fairly reputable gaming journalist. Though journalists can sometimes be influenced by the people and topics they cover, this article seems like a long-form piece of investigative journalism. She doesn't shy away from explaining the game in relation to negative aspects of the fashion industry: "I think that Covet is fun, but I don't know if it's good for me. My relationship to the fashion industry is complicated in that I love beautiful clothes but am both lazy and tend towards cynicism... an industry that has driven women to eating disorders... relies on sweatshops to create their garments... historically racist on the runway..." Another common misconception is that an article has to be overly negative or critical about a company or product in order to count towards NCORP. There's a difference between offering praise to a topic or person and glazing over them like a puff-piece does, and while I can see how one would assume the latter here, I think stuff like this proves that it walks towards the former side of the runway.

I've also yet to find evidence that the game's creators influenced these two publications such that they could cover the game in a fashionable light, akin to a truly non-independent source. It seems that there was editorial oversight that ensured the writers here had no vested interest in the game, its creators or the company itself.

Finally, if editors are still unconvinced, maybe a search on Google Scholar should be enough to prove it - like this solid scholarly source (may also need TWL to access). PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources per Waxworker and Hobit seem more than sufficient, but the scholarly source PantheonRadience found puts it WELL over the top, with extended scholarly attention to the game (I have access to full text via University, so could check). More than meets WP:GNG

Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2024 (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.