Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duchamp (clothing)

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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duchamp (clothing)

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

Refused PROD, "deserves an afd at least", so I'm giving it one.

Notability: 5 years and still not a single independent source. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems notable enough, I search google books for duchamp+cufflinks, and got several hits for fashion magazines of 1990s, etc. --Soman (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2013
(edit conflict) Keep - The sources added to the article by the guy who declined the PROD seem to prove notability, and they are independent sources, yes. T C N7JM 20:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the page originally was longer, and seemed to have been added by a wikipedian with interest in fashion who then went on to other things, but some IP anons with likely-to-my-eyes WP:COI difficulties started adding WP:SPIP everywhere. User:Racconish performed some de-peacocking for them in 2010, but they failed to take the hint, and in 2011 put in a ton more advertising-copy, after which Racconish got frustrated and slashed the article down to a single sentence. I'm willing to walk the anons through the WP:N and WP:V and WP:COI minefield, so that the article can have the Notable stuff, and leave out the advertising fluff. But it does seem to not have any editors who are not suffering from WP:COI... is there a place one might locate a neutral wikipedia editor interested in the men's boutique fashion industry? Maybe we can interest them in putting the article on their watchlist, to help nip any promotional-content in the bud in the future. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Added copy and refs. Would be happy to help too. — Racconish^Tk 10:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, page content has been significantly restored by User:Racconish (well done). No response from anon editors yet, so it is unclear whether they have yet had the relevant wikipedia policies explained to them; suggest folks interested in keeping this article reliable add it to their watchlists, and if an anon shows up to make 'constructive' edits without much clue about wiki-policies, please send them over to WP:TEAHOUSE or maybe WP:RETENTION so that somebody can walk them through how to use talkpages if they have WP:COI inherently, what WP:RS means, and so on. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the name of the company might now officially be Duchamp London, which methinks was changed around the time of a change in ownership. If we can confirm this name-change is the case, probably the article will need to be moved to Duchamp London (clothing), with a redirect thereto replacing the current Duchamp (clothing), is this right? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me there is a holding company, Duchamp Holdings Limited, with two subsidiaries, Duchamp Limited (wholesale) and Duchamp Retail Limited (retail). — Racconish^Tk 17:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include: [1], [2], [3]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:59, 22 October 2013 (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.