Talk:Frédéric Fekkai

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 May 2014. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

France

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

When did he move to NY?

The 1st paragraph says that he moved to NY in 1979, and the given ref supports this statement. The second paragraph says that in 1979 he moved to Paris, and then moved to NY only 3 years later. The given ref supports this.

(At least) One of these references must be garbage. But have no idea which. 51.154.145.205 (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for Deletion

I have nominated this page for deletion. Since its inception, it has vacillated between being a stub and puffery. Horse Badorties (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

A LOT OF ADVERTISEMENT!!!

not advertisement

In WP is not possible to link sites that are having contact us pages,products and/or services advertisement. The link to Frederic Fekkai official website has a lot of advertisement!.Please don't reverte again the link to frederic fekkai official site, it has been previously deleted by other editor. Avoid be blocked from editing. 151.202.70.35 20:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Ralicia[reply]

The official website of Frédéric Fekkai is the primary source for this article, and is required to satisfy WP:V, an official policy of Wikipedia. It's removal may be considered an act of vandalism. Please be advised.--Endroit 09:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Primary sources are rarely enough to satisfy WP:V. You should re-read WP:V carefully; mainly: Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. Now tell me the website is not "unduly self-serving". Read the "About Frederic Fekkai" section and you'll notice that this is written entirely to sell his abilities/products. Even the "Press" section is questionable. The magazines are being quoted out of context to further promote Frederic, and the writing in the snapshots of these magazines is too fuzzy to make out. This in not enough to satisfy WP:V and the source is not reliable enough to support the claim that he has styled the hair of those prominent actresses. Until reliable secondary sources are provided, I'm removing both the source and the website. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "About Frédéric Fekkai" page is an autobiography, yes. But this autobiography page is not "unduly" self-serving nor fabricated. Therefore, it doesn't violate WP:V requirements.

Tell me, how can the information about Fekkai's ~~date &~~ place of birth be "unduly" self-serving? Which other statement in our article is "unduly self-serving" for Fekkai? The whole article is based primarily on this autobiography, so you cannot just delete this source.--Endroit 16:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unduly" does not mean "everything" - it means excessive. As for examples; claiming yourself as "renowned" and "most celebrated names in beauty and hairstyling" without sourcing it is self-serving. And, if you want to source his date & place of birth, you're not sourcing at the right place to begin with. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not excessive. The word "renowned" is backed by Fekkai's entry in the IMDB. And "one of the most celebrated names in beauty and hairstyling" is not used in our article. And the rest of the article is based on this source, but not in an "unduly" manner to promote Fekkai. (Sorry, the date of birth isn't sourced, and therefore not mentioned in our article.)--Endroit 16:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An entry at IMDB does not make you renowned for your hairstyling. And by excessive, I mean his entire website; not just the autobiography part. The website is made up of 5 sections:

Home

Only flashes pictures of his works and products

About Frederic Fekkai

Uses unsourced peacock terms

Products

Advertises his products

Press

Questionable contextomy as mentioned earlier without proper sources.

Our Locations

Self explanatory

How else can I illustrate the self-serving nature of the website. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it comes down to this:

WP:V says "Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves" if "it is not unduly self-serving."

Just because the "source" (fredricfekkai.com) is "unreliable" or self-published, it doesn't mean the material (autobiography, About Frédéric Fekkai) cannot be used. And no, this autobiograpy is NOT "unduly" self-serving. But this is just my opinion. You should get community consensus first before you delete it. Otherwise, it's just vandalism, since this source is critical for this article.--Endroit 17:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, sources have to be reliable when it comes to claims. And again, I wasn't speaking of just the autobiography, I was talking about the entire website... and I don't need consensus when it comes to wikipedia policy. — Dorvaq (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Fekkai IS a reliable source for Frédéric Fekkai, of course. You have not satisfactorily explained how his autobiography is unreliable. Your claim that Frédéric Fekkai is an unreliable source for Frédéric Fekkai just baffles me. (If you are claiming that Frédéric Fekkai is not notable enough to deserve an article in Wikipedia, you should try WP:AfD instead).--Endroit 17:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you feel so strongly that Fekkai's official site cannot be used, I have requested 3rd opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies.--Endroit 18:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, there's something we both agree on. I have filed a request for assistance on my end not knowing you were requesting comments. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Basically agree with Dorvaq. Words like "renowned", and "highly successful" are puffery, and very self-serving, you need to cite serious sources to use them. Better to just strike them. IMDB is edited by anonymous contributors, and while it does have some editorial control, is also not good enough to cite puffery. Here's a source that gives a different point of view: Most Overrated Salon 2005 New York Magazine. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question for AnonEMouse: Are you suggesting that his autobiography is completely uncitable as a source? Or are you suggesting that words such as "renowned" be stricken from the article?--Endroit 18:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. The autobio is fine for uncontroversial facts: "came from A-E-P" "moved to NY", "opened one salon in NY in 1996 and another in Beverly Hills in 1997". That's not contentious. Opinions like "clean, modern", "sought after", "most prominent" are highly debatable puffery. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the subjective words, "renowned" and "highly successful", from the article. I hope that helps.--Endroit 18:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Dorvaq's request for assistance, though "the source is not reliable given its self-serving nature. The website offers little more than advertisement of Frederic Fekkai's products/services, which inherently makes it unusable for even the external link section." is not correct either. Personal sites are always self-serving, by definition (if it doesn't serve your goal, why would you keep it up?) and commercial company's sites are quite often laden with advertising. They're still highly useful, irreplaceable, even, in the external links section. Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked is quite clear on that, #1 in the list. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am familiar with the external links guidelines, and my issue there is with the "Links normally to be avoided" mainly; points 3, 4, and 11. And on a side note, this article is about Frédéric Fekkai, and not about his products/services.

Also, under EL guidelines, external links should add information about the subject at hand that can not be readily added to the article. As I have mentioned before, the website doesn't add anything about Frédéric Fekkai that the article doesn't have already, other than his date & place of birth — which can be added to article as opposed to linking the website.

Yet, my main problem is not with having it in the external links section, but having it as a source beside the claim being made. I find the source having questionable reliability due to the points I have made above. This doesn't satisfy WP:V#Sources. If a primary source hasn't been verified as reliable, then we shouldn't use it as a source.

Now if secondary sources are found verifying the claims on the primary source, then I would not object. — Dorvaq (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat what I said on my own talk page: This is a slam dunk, actually. WP:SPS, an official policy, holds that "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." A personal website is generally held - and emphasis on the "generally" - to be suitable only for uncontroversial vitae curriculae such as birthdates, birthplaces, family info and other suchlike. Under no circumstances whatsoever would I consider an assertion that this hairdresser services specific, named top actresses reliable on nothing more than the hairdresser's naked word, and neither should any one else. AnonEMouse is right that the website is appropriate in the External Links section, but not otherwise as a source. Ravenswing 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annnnd ... Endroit's newest source looks good. Ravenswing 00:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Ravenswing: The reason I asked for 3rd party comments here was this edit by Dorvaq, where he removed BOTH links to fredricfekkai.com while tagging the article as "unsourced". Do you agree with Dorvaq that both links must be removed? Or can I keep one? I'm fine with keeping one or the other, either from the "References" section or from the "External links" section. I take it that you prefer to keep the link from the "External links" section?--Endroit 00:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't consider his website a valid source under WP:SPS, but it's certainly appropriate to mention its existence if the subject is otherwise notable, and External Links is the proper place for it. Ravenswing 01:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved the "official website" to the "External links" section (linking it to its "main page"). I would still assume that the "official website" can be accepted as the source for the part about Fekkai being born in Aix-en-Provence, France, and owning salons in NY & Beverly Hills. Am I correct?--Endroit 01:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; those are exactly the sorts of biographical information held to be validly supported by a personal website, since his claims to be a notable hairdresser are independently supported in the first place.

Beyond that, to boil a long post down, Dorvag has asked me on my talk page my opinion as to the appropriateness of including his personal website under External links. I reiterate my belief that it is, be it ever so self-promotional. Without delving into hairsplitting over the minutiae of the applicable guidelines - this being a perfect time to apply WP:UCS - first off, there isn't a personal website in creation that doesn't reflect the owner's views, opinions and/or agenda, yet just about every article on a subject with a website has the appropriate link. Does anyone really believe that the official site in the Wal-mart infobox doesn't exist for the sole purpose of selling stuff, or that the official site linked to Rush Limbaugh's article is a neutral and objective examination of Limbaugh's views and history?

Secondly, for a notable subject, his/her/its website is in its own right a significant and encyclopedic piece of information. Ravenswing 14:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support everything Ravenswing wrote. One of these days, I'm going to have to learn to write like that. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input RG and AnonEMouse. Then I guess overall it settles the issue regarding consensus here, and on another similar discussion elsewhere, which I will rectify immediately. I am still not fully convinced given our current guidelines, but I will not pursue the matter here anymore. The best venue to follow is to ask that better clarification be given within WP:EL regarding official websites. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I thank the 3 of you, RG, AnonEMouse, and Dorvaq, for your valuable inputs. I am happy that, with your help, we accomplished 2 things here:

The sourcing for this article has been vastly improved.
All of you got to know Frédéric Fekkai a little better. I don't know Fekkai personally, but he's a charming fella, with a heavy French accent, likes to go skiing with his son, and... popular among the women (although none of this is sourced).

Please continue to let us know in this talk page, if you see any more problems in the future.--Endroit 15:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]