Talk:Tory Burch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Tory Burch has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 30, 2008 Candidate for speedy deletion Deleted
September 11, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 22, 2008.
Current status: Good article

Deletion history[edit]

This page was previously deleted at 23:25, 30 April 2008 by DGG (talk · contribs) with the following deletion log edit summary ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising: db|nn-bio / spam).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

DGG had the right idea. What a bunch of tripe. (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


Does anyone know:

  1. Her middle name(s)
  2. Whether she ever went by the name Macklowe
  3. Whether Tory is short for something--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[edit]

Some of us feel that is an unreliable source, as well as a spammer. There are some comments here: Thoughts? - Owlmonkey (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are some examples another editor raised demonstrating that is not a neutral, fact-checked, reliable source by citing these two example articles there: matt lauer and steve shwarzman. I'm mostly concerned about the site spamming the wikipedia, and that's enough to view them as a pariah. but the usefulness of their content is probably worth considering if we feel they're not up to modern journalistic standards for neutrality and don't cite their sources (especially for biographies of living persons articles) In my mind, if they try to be more gossipy than encyclopedic, we should be suspicious of the reliability of their content. But I'm also pissed at them for spamming, so that's coloring my view somewhat. - Owlmonkey (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I've found alternative citations for every fact that currently cites cityfile - that didn't already have an alternative - and included those in the article. Are you ok with removing cityfile as a source now? Since I find them questionable as a fact checking source, I think that will help maintain the GA quality of this article. Thanks. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I can honestly say that while the spamming alerted me to the source itself, my insistence that cityfile is an unreliable source is not based on that. While it does assert editorial oversight, the site publishes plenty of contentious content without asserting research means or the presence of sources. The Tory Burch entry is a fine example of the site's unreliability. Glancing at it, we have an unsourced controversial assertion with editorializing ("urgically-sculpted nose (and always groomed to within an inch of her life)," and a great instance of weasel words ("Some have suggested that Burch has tried to downplay her non-WASP roots.")

I say that, especially if alternative, better sources are available, remove the cityfile references. -Seidenstud (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]


I suggest adding a section to the page entitled Philanthropy to describe Tory Burch's philanthropic work. I have placed my suggested text with references below.

  • Yes check.svg Done Seems like a good idea to me. -- Matthew Glennon (T/C\D) 13:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What is "Philadelphia high society" and what is a "socialite"? (Her parents were part of Philadelphia high society.[1] Now, she is a socialite). Avocats (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The whole "Socialite" section reads terribly and doesn't seem very relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference TBP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Agnes Irwin School is in Rosemont, PA --- NOT Rosemary, MN[edit]

Can someone fix this, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Separate article for the business[edit]

There should be a separate article about the business. Can someone create it?-TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems like advertising[edit]

The section on her business is written like ad copy from a fashion catalog: "her style is popular with viewers and fans of Gossip Girl," "her style transcends generations" (!), "Burch is one of the leaders in turning the t-shirt into a fashion item" (!!). Is it possible t-shirts were fashion items before Burch started her company in 2004? Although there are many citations - one per sentence in many cases - this article is basically a fan letter, e.g. "Her parents were part of Philadelphia high society". Even with the citation, the sentence is an opinion. I've put this in talk first, but adjectives like "her popular line" of ballerina flats should be trimmed.Catherinejarvis (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

so it is, but she is apparently notable enough that it is worth fixing. It just requires some extensive deletions, including the excessive illustrations--including one straight-forward advertisement labelled as "Burch in Porto Ercole, Italy, wearing a Tory Burch tunic" DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I have also removed the truly absurd "good article" tag. Even at the time it was added in 2010, the article, though less outrageous, was filled with flowery puffery and an excess number of portraits Anyone who wants to readd the tag to the article as I have improved it is welcome to open a new discussion, but please notify me. I don't think my own work here is of that quality--I was just fixing as an alternative to AfD for promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I have restored the {{good article}} tag to the article. WP:GAR procedures are the only approved method of delisting a WP:GA. Any single editor can unilaterally remove the tag through GAR or you can nominate a formal reconsideration of the rating achieved by community consensus. In either case, you are suppose to make some sort of talk page discussing specific violations of WP:WIAGA points.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
It's nearer a GA in either the WP or the plain meaning of the words now that I've edited it. I have no objection. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A year has passed since this talk section began. The paragraph on style remained, basically, advertising, with ridiculous quotes like she made the t-shirt a fashion item. The whole section - while it had citations - was simply fawning opinions of how great and wonderful she is, which is not the point of wikipedia.Catherinejarvis (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and if she is a fashion designer, it is encyclopedic to state her style. I have largely reverted, but agree that any statement that she "invented" the t-shirt is a bit much and have not included that.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Your edit is fine. The section reads better.Catherinejarvis (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)