Talk:Lavender Prada dress of Uma Thurman

Merger proposal

I propose that Lavender Prada dress of Uma Thurman be merged into Uma Thurman. I think that the content in the Lavender Prada dress of Uma Thurman article doesn't merit it's own article but shouldn't be deleted and the best place would be to put in her main article, with a subsection below in the career or awards section. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - This would be better off for a Red carpet fashion in 1990s or Red carpet fashion in 1995 article, which is partly why it's still on the Wikipedia and hasn't been merged elsewhere yet. Mabalu (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yea, I wanted to merge it how we did it with Reese Witherspoon's yellow dress, makes more sense to put it in an article about fashion and not just her main article. But I didn't suggest it since there is no article yet. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    • With info on the dubious 2000s dresses I copied them over to my sandbox page but this is 1990s. Maybe I should start another sandbox for '90s fashion. Mabalu (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I think it's a good idea, I also like the sandbox page you have so far, good sourcing. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• No merge There are plenty of sources considering this dress iconic and unforgettable. In 2013, following this discussion these dresses were deemed independently notable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
• Valoem, what THAT specific AFD proved was that THAT one dress passed notability (and actually, the creator, Dr Blofeld contacted me soon afterwards to say that he agreed that this particular dress was best covered in a general article. It certainly did not automatically impart individual notability to every single dress on the red carpet. Mabalu (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
• I've added sources and mentioned the consensus change, an AfD is fine if you would like. @Dr. Blofeld: do you prefer a merge? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd also comment that until such time as someone is prepared to devote their time to expanding/sourcing individual articles to the level of Yellow Valentino dress of Cate Blanchett, (or at the barest minimum, Black and white Valentino dress of Julia Roberts) they are probably best kept as redirects to the general overviews of that year's coverage (if such a page exists) - with subjects like this, credibility is SO important, and much of the coverage of such dresses is minimal at best. I would want to see at least one reference with substantial commentary on a dress, its style, and its impact, from a cast-iron reliable source, before I was comfortable that an article on an individual dress belonged on Wikipedia - 10 passing mentions would support a note in an overview, but not really a standalone article. Mabalu (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Here's a relevant discussion from the Notability archive Mabalu (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this should be merged into Red carpet fashion in 1995 I think. Feel free to create it and merge!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggest merge to designer's page: Barbara Tfank where it is already mentioned (with referenced sources). Mannanan51 (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Support merge to Barbara Tfank Mabalu (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and boldly merged this page into Barbara Tfank, no objections if anyone wants to revert or merge it elsewhere. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose merge, reverted per above. This is an iconic dress of the Red Carpet and Academy Awards, a particularly notable piece of clothing. The page has good sources (have added one, a full article on the topic), has been featured in three books, and per Veloem. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  You aren't the arbiter of whether or not a garment is "iconic". And a garment that was worn once to one public event, and then likely never seen again, simply doesn't qualify. Not even the dress that Marilyn Monroe wore to sing "Happy Birthday to You" to President Kennedy (two of the most widely known people in the world, even a half-century after their deaths), and which recently sold for $4.8 million got its own article; it's part of a larger article about the event. Uma Thurman is nowhere near the level of the fame of JFK or MM. Nor does a dress worn to the Oscars -- one of hundreds of dresses worn by hundreds of actresses that night -- match the noteworthiness of the most famous actress in the world at the time, singing alone under the spotlight to the most powerful and famous man in the world.
  If you believe that this dress is "iconic" and therefore warrants its own article, then why shouldn't the Gap turtleneck that Sharon Stone famously wore to the 1996 Oscars deserve its own? A Google search of "Sharon Stone" + "gap" + "1996" + "academy OR oscars" returns 232,000 hits. The same search for "Uma Thurman" + "gap" + "1995" + "academy OR oscars" returns only 108,000 hits; less than half as many. And yet not only does Sharon Stone's Gap turtleneck not get its own article, it isn't even mentioned in the article on Sharon Stone!
  Does Humphrey Bogart's fedora as worn in "Casablanca" also get its own WP article? After all, it could be shown today in any context, and a significant percentage of the population would immediately associate it with that actor in that role, from 70 years ago. That qualifies as "iconic". This dress does not. Or why not the oversized tweed sportcoat that Diane Keaton wore in "Annie Hall"? -Charlie Chaplin's bowler? -the bucket hat worn in "Gilligan's Island"? -Robin Williams' rainbow suspenders from "Mork & Mindy"? There is an infinite number of garments and accessories that people immediately associate with a celebrity, movie, TV series or public event, for decades or even centuries afterwards, and yet very few of them warrant their own WP article -- and for good reasons: they are more appropriate included in articles about the celebrities, movie, TV series, etc.
  The current tally is 5 for merging, and only 2 against, so it should be merged. Bricology (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose merge: notable enough for own article. It is considered to have changed red carpet fashion. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)