Talk:Belen Echandia

Hold On

To whom it may concern,

Here are reasons why I believe Belen Echandia is deserving of a Wikipedia page...

1. Belen Echandia has developed a niche business model that contracts family run, traditional Italian leather ateliers to produce custom, premium quality handbags in small quantities. The classical production methods that BE employs are a stark contrast to other competing companies who's products are often either mass produced or compromise quality in some way to realize greater profits. BE's renaissance business model is unique in this day in age.

2. Belen Echandia features a couture service where each and every customer can customize each and every feature of their handbag. My best efforts cannot find another handbag manufacturer in the world that offers this service. If one exists, please point me to it (?).

3. Belen Echandia is a world wide company with employees in the UK, Canada, Sweden, Italy, and US. Product is shipped globally on a daily basis. It is my opinion that any business that ships product globally is deserving and is "notable" enough to warrant a Wikipedia page.

4. Since inception in 2004, Belen Echandia has generated a tremendous amount of press concerning both the company and it's products since it's creation 6 years ago. A snapshot of this press listing is found here. The company and it's products have been featured in many iconic magazines, such as Vogue, Elle, Cosmopolitan, Harper's Bazaar, etc. Products have been endorsed by likes of Claudia Schiffer, Kylie Minogue, etc. I realize that "fame/popularity" and "notability" are not necessarily one in the same by Wikipedia's standards. However, I am of the opinion that "fame/popularity" does/should generate at least some "notability".

Lastly, I am still relatively new to Wikipedia. I have tried to upload a page for Belen Echandia on two or three other occasions. I have tried my best to incorporate feedback received from User:Jimfbleak and User:Malik Shabazz only to have the BE page deleted again. I am realizing that either I have a gap in my understanding of Wikipedia's "notability" rules (despite reading them several times) or I am just no good at contributing to this online community (?). Instead of deleting my efforts yet again, I would ask that the page be tagged as a stub so that other more experienced and more talented Wikipedia contributors can help to build a page for Belen Echandia in a collaborative fashion.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to my point of view. Please feel free to leave a not on my talk page with any questions, concerns, guidance or recommendations.

Parafianowicz (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

PS. I'm going to be off line for 72 hours. Please be patient and allow me the time to review any feedback from the above note and make the appropriate changes to the BE page. Thank you. Parafianowicz (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I restructured the page and added content. Please be patient as there are more edits that I would like to make before the page is re-evaluated. Thank you. Parafianowicz (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I research other companies on Wikipedia's hand bag page and added similar content to bring the Belen Echandia page up to par. I am under the opinion that this page will always be a work in progress; however, I am becoming more confident after going through this editing process that this BE page is getting closer to meeting Wikipedia's standards. Parafianowicz (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The page was fully written by user Parafianowicz, someone who openly admits a compelling bias to the company concerned. This page has been deleted 3 timed so far because of this bias. One needs only to perform a quick search of the user forums related to handbag companies to see the strong disconnect between the words of this article and customer feeling. For example see the quality control tread here http://forum.purseblog.com/belen-echandia/post-customer-service-quality-control-concerns-here-539747.html which now runs to 188 posts. There is not a single mention of quality control issues in the article. None of this is meant as an attack on Parafianowicz, people can't be objective about things they are too closely involved in, which is why the COI policy exists. Also this company is likely too small to be of general interest anyway, it can't have more than 10 employees. 80.68.88.178 (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll answer the four points stated by Parafianowicz above. 1. It's clearly wrong to state that all competing companies mass produce bags. To claim 'BE's renaissance business model is unique in this day in age.'(sic) implies a knowledge of the business model of every single company operating in this sector. Clearly that's impossible, this whole point is based on a very dubious assertion.

2. It's stated that it's hard to find another company who lets customers custom design bags. A quick google search found plenty of companies who do exactly that.

3. Global shipping isn't new or novel, many retailers ship globally and most are not notable.

4. We need a citation for each appearance in Vogue, Elle, Cosmopolitan, and Harper's Bazaar. We need a citation showing how these products are endorsed by Claudia Schiffer and Kylie Minogue. I can't find any evidence of any of this. I suggest not using the names of any living person without clear citations.

This page is an advert and should be re-written by someone who isn't strongly biased or it should be deleted. Unixtastic (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm writing to acknowledge the receipt of Unixtastic and 80.68.88.178's comments. Regretfully, I cannot reply in detail now and will do so over the course of this week. Thank you for your patience. Parafianowicz (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I represent Belen Echandia and I would like to clarify that the only link between Parafianowicz and Belen Echandia is that his sister Lydia interviewed the owner of Belen Echandia for an article for the Swedish newspaper for which she works. We have never met, he doesn't own any Belen Echandia bags, he doesn't have any ownership or other relationship with Belen Echandia and is not biased or closely related to the company. In response to the Purse Forum thread posted, there are 104,520 posts on the Belen Echandia Sub-Forum of the Purse Forum, 188 of which are listed under the complaints thread. We will provide further references as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience.User:Findingtruths (talk) 08.35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone could say they work for anyone else which is why wikipedia has a policy about original research. It's not about your word being better than my word it's about what is provable by citation. Look at the articles about most other companies on wikipedia, they are NPOV and contain both positive and negative. This article is so positive it can't be genuine, furthermore the persistence with which the same account reposts basically the same thing each time it's deleted is indicative of someone with a non-academic motive for posting it. As to your comments about my mentioning a complaints thread I only mentioned this because it's a sticky thread at the top of a busy Internet forum. It's provably true that none of the big name brands on http://forum.purseblog.com have a sticky, top of the page, thread devoted to quality control issues. The lack of any mention of this in this article is evidence of bias. Unixtastic (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Findingtruths - You state that the author and repeated reposter of this article is a brother of a journalist who interviewed the owner of Belen Echandia for an article. This contradicts Parafianowicz's talk page which states that his/her sibling is interning at Belen Echandia. Either you don't know the company which you claim to work for or one of you two isn't telling the truth. In any case none of your statements are verifiable. Unixtastic (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As further evidence of bias on the part of Parafianowicz please see the comment submitted with the image used in this article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Belen_Echandia_Logo.jpg which clearly states 'Jackie Cawthra is a colleague of mine.' This appears to be the same Jackie Cawthra who founded this company. Unixtastic (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, you are correct that Lydia first wrote interviewed the founder of Belen Echandia and then went on to write some website articles as an intern for the Belen Echandia magazine. Her brother Parafianowicz took great interest in the company and was writing a Wikipedia entry for another company he worked for at the time. N.B. that article has not been removed. Parafianowicz does not work for Belen Echandia and is not affiliated with us. He is merely an individual who wished to write an article on Wikipedia about our history. I merely wished to clarify that he is not representing us nor is he closely affiliated with us, nor does he have any material interest in BE, nor have we ever paid him anything. We have never even met. He is in Canada and we are in London. He is not a colleague of ours and does not, nor has ever worked for Belen Echandia in any way, shape or form. I will ask him to address that issue separately/remove that comment/edit it if possible.

You make a good point about the complaints thread on The Purse Blog being a sticky at the top of the page. This is absolutely NOT indicative of us having any more quality issues than any other company out there or on that forum. In fact we surely have far fewer (hence 118/100,000 posts)and almost no returns. It was put there to stop people arguing on the main board, to keep any concerns separate. Each sub-forum is organised differently, the person who set ours up felt that it was best to keep any complaints in a separate thread to keep the rest of the board positive. However, that you have raised this has raised questions for us - thank you - and we will ask the owners of the forum to consider putting it somewhere else.

We have an active community of customers who will be more than happy to post comments to the Wikipedia page if they are only given the chance. I thank you again for your patience whilst Parafianowicz gets back with his answers to your previous questions. (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If you work for BE prove it with a citation, I could easily say I worked for them as could anyone else. How can you state 'I thank you again for your patience whilst Parafianowicz gets back with his answers to your previous questions.' You appear to know this user well enough to have expectations of his behavior and also more personal details than are publicly available. Either 1) Parafianowicz and findingtruths are the same person, 2) findingtruths knows Parafianowicz well enough to expect certain behavior. i.e. Parafianowicz has a business relationship with findingtruths, or 3) findingtruths is a random troublemaker and nothing this user says can be trusted. Findingtruths' previous statement when talking about user Parafianowicz that 'his sister Lydia interviewed the owner of Belen Echandia for an article for the Swedish newspaper' is provably false by the fact that one Lydia from Canada who used to work for a Swedish newspaper now works for this company ( http://www.belenechandia.com/infoarticlepage.aspx?intMenuId=218&intId=53 ). It appears that everything Findingtruths has said so far in this page has been a transparent tissue of lies. Unixtastic (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. (findingtruths) is/I am Jackie Cawthra, and all I am trying to do is explain that Parafianowicz is not employed nor has ever been employed by Belen Echandia. I don't know how to prove who I am but if you check the email address registered to (findingtruths) you will see that this is true. Why have you set the page to db:spam? I saw this morning that another user (also unrelated to BE) had edited the page and I simply logged in to correct a spelling error. I did however forget to tick the box "minor error". I stated that I thank you again for your patience because in the notes above Parafianowicz asked for some time to respond to your questions. I was merely commenting on the thread. I find your behaviour in continuously marking this page as spam to be increasingly absurd. —Preceding undated comment added 08:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC).

Please also note that the biggest contributor to this page is unknown to us - those edits were made last night after the page was flagged as a KEEP by another administrator. Various administrators have already decided that this page is notable but Unixtastic seems to be determined to take it down. I consider that to say that the person who made a major contribution to this page is closely related to Belen Echandia is libellous and I request that you remove that comment immediately until you can prove it. If you think that Parafianowicz or any other major editor of this page is closely related to Belen Echandia then please explain what you think his relationship to Belen Echandia is and prove it with a citation as you are asking me to do. Thank you.

Kindly sign your posts. This article was correctly deleted as a blatant advert 3 times. On the 4th repost it was considered for deletion as 'not notable' instead of 'blatant advert', this was an error. Your statement that you are the owner of this company, and your cartoony legal threat is beyond ridiculous and can't be taken seriously. However just in case your really are the owner of this company you should understand that this article does not belong to you or your company, it belongs to wikipedia. Wikipedia is not your advertising platform but a distributed encyclopedia. Feel free to setup your own mediawiki or post to uncyclopedia instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unixtastic ([[User talk:Unixtastic|Unixtastic)] • contribs) 10:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not signing my posts. I am new to Wikipedia. Respectfully, I haven't made any legal threats. I have simply stated our position that:

1. We did not create this article (but we are for obvious reasons interested in watching what is happening with it, when trusted administrators such as yourself are making unfounded claims which suggest wrongdoing on our part) 2. The person who did create this article has no affiliation to Belen Echandia, legal or otherwise 3. The other person who significantly contributed to this article has no affiliation to Belen Echandia, legal or otherwise 4. The Belen Echandia wikipedia entry was allowed as a keep. As soon as it was, you flagged it again. The reasons stated for the flag are that the person who created is closely related or otherwise affiliated with Belen Echandia. This is not true. Therefore, your case for this page to be a speedy deletion on this basis are unfounded.

The page was previously removed several times because of your objection only. It has since been edited and accepted by davewild.

Also, it looks as though you didn't sign your last post either? User:Findingtruths (talk) 11.00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The user Parafianowicz admits bias by means of a family member working for this company. The user Parafianowicz admits 'Jackie Cawthra is a colleague of mine.' on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Belen_Echandia_Logo.jpg . This article is written as an advert, this is obvious to anyone that reads it. It was falsely kept as the admin involved appeared to believe it was nominated for deletion as 'not notable', it should have been deleted as a 'blatant advert'. If you want an advert I suggest you pay for one in a more appropriate medium instead of coming on here ranting that everything you don't like is libelous. Unixtastic (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I added ANOTHER "hold on" tag, even thought the first was clearly voted to "keep" the Belen Echandia page. Secondly, my time available to contribute to Wikipedia is limited to 1 or 2 hours per week. I do not have time now to review this surprisingly long threat in detail. I have every intention of doing so in time and will add my thoughts later. However, from my brief skim of the discussion, I would suggest that a more collaborative approach is needed. Parafianowicz (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• I do own some Belen Echandia bags. I am not an employee of Belen Echandia nor are any of my relatives. I am working diligently on editing the statements on this page to be encyclopedic, verified and follow the Wikipedia standard of Neutral point of view AuroraHcky (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Parafianowicz sister does not work for Belen Echandia, she has written a few articles for our website as a fan of the brand. But we have disclosed this and I don't think that contravenes any rules. In any case it seems that someone else is now contributing significantly, so any issue you have taken with user Parafianowicz should now be satisfied. I agree with user Parafianowicz that a collaborative approach is needed. There are many, many, many company articles on Wikipedia, including several for handbag companies that don't look so different from this page and none of them have been flagged, nor do they have any quality issues as mentioned on the Purse forum mentioned. Here are some examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yves_Saint_Laurent_%28brand%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottega_Veneta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_choo

This is why i am endeavouring to understand why, with your limited number of edits on Wikipedia, you have chosen Belen Echandia as your apparently only target. Out of 10 edits recently, 7 were for Belen Echandia. The only person fighting to have this page taken down was you. What's that about? findingtruths (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

AFD closers comment

• Firstly note I have restored the talk page history of the Belen Echandia article that was deleted so the comments there are not lost. Secondly, thanks Syrthiss for your comments above and I saw those on Findingtruths talk page. Thirdly I will copy these comments to the article talk page.
• My reasons for keeping the article are that the AFD to my mind established that this topic is a valid one with enough coverage to establish notability. When considering advertising we only delete where articles are "Unambiguous advertising and promotion" and on "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". When considering the version at the close of the AFD and given the comments in the AFD with only person rasing that as an issue there I could not consider that this was the case. I have looked at the previous versions that were deleted such as this version and I agree that those do meet this criterion and would myself have speedy deleted an article in that condition. When considering the article now and the version I have linked above I consider them significantly different. If articles are promotional but do contain previous versions that are valid or which can be edited to make neutral then editing not deletion is the route we must take.
• However I agree that the article at the moment is not Neutral Point of View and does need some editing to make it so. Unixtastic if you can source to reliable secondary sources the negative things you mention on my talk page then I would agree they should be included in the article, but as I say they need to be sourced reliably and from my quick searches I could not find anything reliably sourced (but I could have easily missed things). I shall do a few edits myself to try and remove a bit of the more promotional text. If the article keeps getting new editors trying to add overly promotional material to the article then it can be semi-protected, but I don't think that is necessary at the moment. Davewild (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have done a bit of editing removing some of the most obvious promotional parts. I am very far from being an expert on this topic (completely the opposite actually!) and it can certainly do with other people editing as well. But please bear in mind Wikipedia:Verifiability and ensure anything added is back up by reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I allowed to post here? Done this to keep it in sequence but if it is not allowed please move it to the thread above. What I don't understand is that you have now removed key information about the nature of the company. It is for example highly significant that everything is made in Europe. It is also significant that Belen Echandia offers a bespoke service. This is not advertising, they are merely facts and form a key part of the Belen Echandia history. Please take a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottega_Veneta to see the kind of detail included on other such company pages. Does having a neutral point of view mean not mentioning the most important and significant facets of a business? Thanks findingtruths —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC).

You or anyone else can comment anywhere on here. When editing the article just make sure everything is verifiable to reliable secondary sources and that it is not promotional in tone. I have re-added a sentence about the website which mentions about customers being to design their own handbags without going into the details which sounded too promotional to me. Davewild (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Great. I just wasn't sure about adding comments under the AFD Closers Part. I'm very new to Wikipedia. Thank you for clarifying. findingtruths (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Further to your last comment on the other page, could you let me know what is the appropriate channel for complaints for unfounded accusations/statements so that I can deal with them appropriately in the future? Thank you so much. ([User:findingtruths|findingtruths]] (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The first thing is to try and calmly discuss things with the person who is making comments that you find problematic. If the situation becomes unsolveable between two editors then you can report situations on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but be aware commenters there will look at all involved editors comments. Davewild (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you findingtruths (talk)19:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC

Browns Focus

I removed a statement that the London UK store Browns Focus sells these bags. This is untrue although they did try selling one model of Belen Echandia bag 3 years ago they have not stocked these since. I don't have a web citation for this information but as the information in the article should be proved true by citation I don't believe this is a problem. Unixtastic (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a link supporting Belen Echandia being sold at Browns Focus, reference #7 by Lauren Milligan. This article is from 2009, which seems to contradict your statement. Since there is a reference supporting the Browns Focus selling Belen Echandia, perhaps it should be added back in. AuroraHcky (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Luxury brands

I've been looking at the luxury brands list. I believe that comparing this brand to big names like Armani, Gucci, Hermès, and Louis Vuitton is a very large stretch indeed. It takes decades of retail to even be in the same game as these kinds of top end retailers. I don't believe you can be considered a luxury brand unless your name is fairly well known for quality products. This company isn't nearly as well known as any of the other names I've mentioned so I believe listing this as a luxury brand is an oversell. Unixtastic (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that luxury is defined as being well known for quality products. While Hermès is often praised for it's quality. I know of many complaints of Louis Vuitton and Gucci quality. Though I am currently unable to find a reference for issues with Louis Vuitton and Gucci that would meet Wikipedia's standards, mostly blogs and forums. Vogue refers to Belen Echandia as a luxury brand, so I think referring to it here seems relevant. AuroraHcky (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The strict definition of luxury is:

1. Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort. 2. Something expensive or hard to obtain. 3. Sumptuous living or surroundings.

Of course, I am biased. But the brand has been described as luxury by many independent journalists and buyers. Respectfully I don't think it is your position to tell the brand what it is or is not.

User:findingtruths (talk) 10.40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right in defining the word luxury but 'Luxury brand' has a quite different meaning to 'luxury' or even 'luxury good'. One definition is that a brand can be considered a luxury brand if its total advertising expenditure is around 25% of sales revenue. The easy definition is that it can be considered a luxury brand if around 4 out of 5 random people on a street agree it is. If you ask random strangers about Rolls-royce, or Patek Philippe they will likely agree they are luxury brands. It takes very large amounts of both time and money to get that kind of recognition. The wikipedia list of luxury brands really needs a clean up. 95.97.72.58 (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Kindly sign your post. This is Wikipedia's definition of a luxury good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_brand. Surely if a brand sells luxury goods it can be described as a luxury brand. I don't think it will be easy to reach consensus on this topic because luxury is a term which is relative. For good reason therefore, Wikipedia is not about our personal opinions of the definition of luxury but rather about finding independent references to support a position. And there are independent references describing Belen Echandia as a luxury brand. User:findingtruths (talk) 12.18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's not that simple -

A luxury has a high elasticity of demand.
A luxury good is a good with a high elasticity of demand.
A luxury brand is a brand aimed at a small select group of the social-economic elite like the super-rich.

Strictly speaking a luxury good is anything that customers can live without. This includes the vast majority of retail sales. A luxury brand is a brand that goes beyond that to only appealing to a very small group of customers by virtue of having a cost that normal working people could not meet. This is a tiny minority of retail sales. For obvious reasons most companies want to be positioned as a luxury brand but very few actually are. Consider Parker pens; these are seen as superior to the most common type of pen, the BIC biro. Parker pens may be considered luxury goods but that doesn't make Parker pens a luxury brand. 95.97.72.58 (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please provide citations for your assertions. Who decides which brands are luxury and which are not? Is luxury not relative? Is it true that luxury brands are only aimed at the super rich? Have you read "How luxury lost its lustre" by Dana Thomas? Can a brand stop being luxury? In the 80s many "luxury brands" moved their production offshore to Asia, resulting in a huge decrease in quality across the board. Does this mean that they are no longer luxury brands? For many people, the fact that a brand still produces in a small atelier in Italy when the "mass market luxury brands" now produce in cheap labour markets makes it a luxury brand. This brings me back to point - luxury is relative. What is a luxury brand to you is not a luxury brand to me. By your definition, the vast majority of luxury brands that are described as such on Wikipedia are not. Have you corrected those as well? User:findingtruths (talk) 13.30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I know the book you mentioned. Dana Thomas argues that Luxury is a relative term as what is considered luxury one year is seen as commonplace the next. She is a fashion writer not an economist. An economist will likely tell you that there is a fundamental difference between a luxury and a non-luxury good. A good is considered a luxury when you don't absolutely need it. The phrase luxury brand represents a totally different idea, that a brand appeals to a select few with abnormally large amounts of disposable money. Wikipedia really does need to be cleaned up as it's quite misleading. 95.97.72.58 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Within your definition of a luxury brand, most of the brands that you have mentioned and most of the brands that the public consider to be luxury brands would not be considered luxury brands. Most "luxury brands" most definitely now attempt to appeal to all sectors of the market, which is why they introduced cheaper product lines and smaller items and sacrificed quality by moving production to emerging markets. In any case, this is just a matter of my opinion and your opinion. I have a book that written by those who teach the luxury MBA in Paris which asserts that once a luxury brand has a sale, it is no longer a luxury brand. This would make almost no brand a luxury brand since even Hermes is about to show up on the US private sales site Rue La La. This is an interesting discussion! Thanks. User:findingtruths (talk) 16.53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

We have a source that is already referenced in the article, #7 by Lauren Milligan, that refers to Belen Echandia as a "Luxury handbag design company". I left the original luxury statement there because of that source referring to Belen Echandia as such. One person's definition of luxury may differ from another's, which is normal for a term like luxury. In this particular case we have an outside source for using the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AuroraHcky (talk • contribs) 14:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

External Links

I don't believe belenechandia.org is an official site, so I have removed it. According to WhoIs the Registrar for belenechandia.com is Registrar: ADVANTAGE INTERACTIVE LTD and has nameservers with Swedish extensions.[1] The sponsoring registrar for belenechandia.org is GoDaddy.com, Inc and appears to be registered in the United States.[2] Also, should the links to the PurseForum be included? I thought that links to forums were to be avoided. AuroraHcky (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

www.belenechandia.org is a spam site unrelated to Belen Echandia. It is a link farm. findingtruths (talk) 10.42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed 4 external links from the article per the Wikipedia:External links guideline. Two of the links were to a disucssion forum and the other two were to Twitter and Facebook. In the external links guideline section Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided section Item 10 specifically covers these types of site saying "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." While the official Twitter and Facebook sites might be allowable under the Official Links section of the guideline; when we already link to the official website of the organisation they are not needed as well. Davewild (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! That's extremely helpful and also makes the External Links section look more streamlined. AuroraHcky (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Telegraph Citation

I noticed that the citation[3] to the Telegraph was removed. I thought it was valid, so I'd be happy to learn what the problem was. AuroraHcky (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a notable source. That link contains a picture, a buy tag, and lacks any other information. It looks like the general public can submit any product to that site. Unixtastic (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a source showing that they were featured in the Telegraph. According to the Telegraph for I Spied "Our expert editors and contributors select the best fashion, accessories and beauty products from the high street to the catwalk. Spy it, love it, buy it!" Based upon that, I don't believe the general public is submitting the products. There is also a sentence on why the item was listed. AuroraHcky (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The "I Spied" was made by Phong Luu who is an editor for The Daily Telegraph.[4] Since she's an employee of the Telegraph, I think this citation is valid to show that Belen Echandia was featured in the Telegraph. AuroraHcky (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That's misleading. A web reference isn't proof that any given thing appeared in a paper print of the telegraph. The phrasing should read '... and appeared on the telegraph's website'. Unixtastic (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Why does a differentiation need to be made if it was on the website or in the print paper? The reference was made on the website by an editor of the Telegraph. AuroraHcky (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur w/AuoraHcky. We regularly cite online and print versions of the newspaper as the same, without having to cross-reference the two to see if the same info appears in both places. t would be nearly impossible for us to do that, since most articles refer to the online versions of newspaper articles rather than the print. I'm going to change it back. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The paper version of this newspaper is a core product that generates almost all revenue for the company involved. The website is a side product that reuses some content, it only exists as advertising for the paper version and is therefore produced to a lower editorial standard. Unixtastic (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a possible reason. Please produce some evidence that this is true. I haven't seen anything anywhere on Wikipedia that states that we hold online newspaper reference as any less reliable than print references, especially because with most newspapers its actually impossible to tell the difference (since they don't explicitly state that the info is online only, print only, or both). In fact, I don't even see where the Telegraph's "I Spied" column says that the info is online only. All they say, as far as I can see, is "Our expert editors and contributors select the best fashion, accessories and beauty products from the high street to the catwalk. Spy it, love it, buy it!" So, I guess you need to show 3 things: 1) "I Spied" is produced for the online Telegraph only; 2) The online version is "side content"; and 3) As a result of 1 & 2, the content has a lower editorial standard to meet. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not proven true. See Closed world assumption. Unixtastic (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what relevance that link holds. Whatever philosophical point you're trying to make, my point is that all across Wikipedia we regularly cite the online versions of newspapers without doing any kind of checking to see if the article was also published in print. So there appears to be default consensus. Thus, the onus is on you to somehow argue against that consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The argument that this change is invalid because it goes against the implied consent of all the other people that didn't make this change is flawed. The same reasoning indicates that all changes are invalid. Silence is not consensus or consent. Unixtastic (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that silence is consensus (although, as a working principle on Wikipedia it is). I'm saying that all across the 'pedia we fail to distinguish between online and print newspaper articles. You are seeking to make such a distinction, based on a few reasons. You need to 1) substantiate those reasons, as several of your claims (like the lower level of editorial overview) are just your claims without any evidence, and 2) argue that those distinctions are important enough that we need to explicitly clarify the difference to the reader. Unless you can do so, I don't see why we should make the change, given that our common practice, not just at this article, is not to distinguish. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarifications

I have a COI as a representative of Belen Echandia.

• Please could someone correct this grammatical error in the first sentence:

Belen Echandia's produces should be Belen Echandia produces

Here are a few clarifications in response to some questions raised:

• The brand was founded in 2003: sampling and production began in 2003 but that is a long process so BE did not start selling handbags until 2004. It is accurate to say that the brand was founded in 2003 and began selling handbags in 2004. I think there are mentions of this in the references on the page.

• Location: Jackie Cawthra is based in London and sometimes in Sweden, where her husband grew up. Belen Echandia's offices are based in London and the entire business operation is in England. The bags are despatched from Aylesbury.

Here is the CNN reference requested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmdRFrDEWH0

Here are the Telegraph articles: http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/ispied/TMG989/nutmeg-inspire-me.html http://www.belenechandia.com/pressDetail.aspx?intUrlId=8&intId=58 - Malika Dalamal 03/05/2005 (this was in the paper copy and is not available as a link on the internet)

We have a question for a trusted editor please - it says in the Wikipedia guidelines that anyone connected with the brand should post relevant information here for people to add to the references on this page, and we will happily do so to assist other editors. Most of the magazines that print stories are print and not online. Most of these articles will be available on the Belen Echandia website press section: is it sufficient for us to post that link and for the relevant editor to use the information from the scanned page? For example, the brand is often featured in Grazia. But it does not appear on the Grazia website. Sometimes (not always) we put the pieces up on the Belen Echandia Here is an example: http://www.belenechandia.com/pressDetail.aspx?intUrlId=8&intId=268. Do you just need a scan like this?

Another question: The Daily Mail featured a picture of Samantha Janus wearing her Belen Echandia python clutch bag to Elton John's White Tie & Tiara Ball. You can see it if you scroll down next to Samantha Janus:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1195585/All-white-night-Liz-Hurley-Geri-Halliwell-battle-belle-ball-Sir-Elton-Johns-annual-bash.html OK! also put a picture of her wearing it on the front cover, see here: http://www.belenechandia.com/data/pdf_files/OK!%20mag%20June%2030th%20%281-4%29.pdf

Another example - Grazia tells people that Clauda Schiffer has this purple python clutch: http://www.belenechandia.com/pressDetail.aspx?intUrlId=8&intId=239.

How does one reference such information?

Finally, the reference to Belen Echandia producing in Italy appears to have disappeared. This is a *very* important part of the Belen Echandia philosophy and an article on Belen Echandia is incomplete without mention of its Italian atelier/production. Originally the bags were produced in a Spanish atelier. I have on file an important flagship feature which mentions this, which I will post a link to later. It also includes more references to where Belen Echandia bags are, or have been, sold. Since stores change their selections every year, any mention of where a brand's products are sold is likely to be inaccurate. A store might stock a product and sell out, then two months later get more, if you ask them in the interim period they will state that they do not stock the product. So given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and all referenced (even old) information is valid, it would be much more accurate if/when mentioning stores to write "Belen Echandia bags are, or have been sold by....and list all of the stores that are mentioned in references as having stocked the products. Since Belen Echandia does not have its own stores, that could be in the context of the fact that Belen Echandia does not have its own stores but rather distributes products via other stores.

The Good Web Guide wrote a guide to Belen Echandia and they have a mention of the bags being produced in Italy, if a lack of reference was the problem. http://www.thegoodwebguide.co.uk/lifestyle/shopping/reviews/handbags-shoes/belen-echandia/4310.

I hope this was helpful. findingtruths (talk) 14.49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I made the grammar change. For the CNN reference, we can't link to Youtube; we can still cite what it says, but we would need to know, I think, the name of the program and the original airdate, and ideally, the program number if possible. I would be happy to help on the rest of the references; I'll have to take a look at them later. The thing is, per normal articles on companies, we don't want an "in the media" section--that makes this look like a corporate web page. Instead, references should be used to support encyclopedic information. So after I or someone else reads them, we should figure out which can be used to support encyclopedic info in the text, not just be a list of press appearances. One more followup: you're kind of on the right track about where the products are sold, but you're proposed fix isn't quite right--really, following the principle in WP:NOT, we shouldn't be listening either where they are sold now or where they have been sold in the past (except perhaps points that are historically important, like the first store, or something else that got clear and important news press). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. The name of the program is Design 360 - Dayna has since left CNN and I wouldn't have a clue what the airdate was, but I can try to find out because that is a really good historical reference and also allows people to see the bags being made (so maybe worth including?). Re the media section, I haven't edited the page and I won't, as I have a COI as the owner of the company so I will just provide requested information from other editors in the BE archives to help out. The first store that the products were sold in is Austique on the Kings Road in London, I will try to find a reference for that. findingtruths (talk) 23.02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a Viva Flagship feature which contains a more detailed history and confirms that the first store was Austique. It's written as an interview though - most or many fashion pieces unfortunately are. Also, it has some errors. For example Belen Echandia has never sold bags to Liberty - the journalist got that wrong. http://www.belenechandia.com/data/press/Viva_flagship_feature_-_Belen%20Echandia.pdf findingtruths (talk) 9.29 , 5 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.100.97 (talk)

The Handbagdesigner101.com and MoretoLaw sources also mention the first store being Austique, again in interview form. Not sure how exactly to work it into the article, maybe someone else has a great idea. AuroraHcky (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In the media section Belen Echandia is misspelled. I don't want to edit the article as I am associated with the company and given the history of this page I daren't do even a minor edit... please could someone correct? Thank you! findingtruths (talk) 15.24, 21 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.100.97 (talk)

You are allowed to make completely non-controversial edits, like spelling/grammar correction, or to remove vandalism (e.g., someone comes and writes four-letter words across the page). If you're unsure, you certainly can ask for help here. The idea is that you need to not make any edits which are controversial or which might be WP:NPOV. I'll go ahead and fix this one now. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, got it. Thank you Qwyrxian. findingtruths (talk) 15.32, 5 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.100.97 (talk)

References

Some of the references are ugly. There is no need to put half the text of the reference next to each reference. This really should be tidied up. Unixtastic (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

High Fashion Brands category

On Category:High fashion brands, the category explicitly states that it is "for current brands that show on-schedule at one of the world's four major fashion weeks (Paris, Milan, London, and New York)." Which of those shows has Belen Echandia shown at? If none, then the category must be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)