Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanity (clothing)
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 14:47, 8 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 14:47, 8 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vanity (clothing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am not sure about the notability. Was afraid to CSD. LouriePieterse 19:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems a bit promotional in tone but 200 stores in 27 states (assuming that unsourced information is accurate) seems to give it roughly similar notability to many other businesses we have articles about. I just did a casual check on the stores in my local mall and all of them seem to have articles similar to this, so I think notability for retail chains of this size has established consensus. Ben Kidwell (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. meets wp:corp and isnt terribly advert-y. Mystache (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup; significant-sized chain with non-trivial history and I'm sure there're sources somewhere. Most of the retail articles suck because nobody can be bothered to add any freaking sources. I did find one but otherwise I'm having a hard time making Google understand. Can someone with better Google-fu PLEASE help? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi TenPoundHammer. I've Googled for the words Vanity, Inc. This way one gets the most accurate results. Kind regards, LouriePieterse 12:14, 14 October 2009 (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.