Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margene's bridal

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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Margene's bridal

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Unremarkable local retailer, borderline advertising, unsourced. Acroterion (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've removed the obvious spam, but what is left is a borderline A7 candidate. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete - I do not see a clear assertion of notability on this unsourced stub. It's a bridal shop in a city with at least a dozen of such businesses! It's not even the highest rated on Yelp in Oakland. How can that not be run of the mill? Bearian (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't quite prepared to speedy delete as an A7, but your mileage may vary; it's clearly not notable, the only issue in my mind was a credible assertion. Acroterion (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 4 stars on Yelp isn't very significant. Promotion on a local TV channel isn't either. WP:MILL Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not an A7 candidate - there is an assertion of notability. Just not a credible one. Ravenswing 05:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that the article could say "Margene's Bridal has been around since Adam and Eve" and that would be an assertation of notability worth declining an A7? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Winning an award" is an example of a credible assertion of notability. Existing "since Adam and Eve" is not a credible assertion of notability. The latter would be speedy deleted, the former wouldn't. Stephen! ^Coming... 12:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd have agreed with speedying it but I don't think the AfD was a waste of time; low-hanging fruit like this can be good practice for people without much experience at assessing AfD criteria, and what is clear to one person may not be to another. To be clear, I found no notability implied or present. Ubelowme (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whilst this business is no doubt known locally, it does not show the wider significance that would qualify it for an article. Mabalu (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of WP:RS makes it fail WP:GNG. On the other hand, even if there were refs, the subject is important enough, but just not notable enough to have a article on wiki. →TSU ^tp* 14:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I can see where reasonable people can disagree how notable this could be. Bearian (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — full of WP:WIKIPUFFERY and WP:ARTSPAM. —JmaJeremy ^TALK _CONTRIBS 19:58, 27 June 2012 (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.