Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluebell Group

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. Consensus among those that advanced any reasoning is that the article fails CORP. Courcelles 22:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bluebell Group

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:CORP Vanadus (talk | contribs) 21:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does not fail WP:CORP. --- Freja Beha Erichsen (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Does not fail WP:CORP. Ctw214 (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All three of you should read WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:JNN. Would you all care to elaborate on your reasoning? What led you to believe it does or does not meet WP:CORP.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does not fail WP:CORP. As editor for this Wikipedia, I am trying to elaborate why I believe the company group is notable. It has significant coverage in secondary sources namely luxury society , Highbeam research, The Seattle Times , Hong Kong Trade Development Center and others. The company also has public award and coverage by Women's_Wear_Daily , an well-known subscriber only site for fashion industry Michael Lam 2011 (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not reviewed all of the available information but the sources I checked were not enough. This award for example is nothing but a list of companies with little elaboration on why any of them deserved an award or what the process was for deciding this. Many of the other links, like this one, fail WP:CORP because they just profile a list of similar companies by republishing each company's stand blurb in an article without expounding on it. The WWD cite mentioned by Michael Lam, if this is it, seems a bit trite and may not be giving any useful information about what the company does, other than it is expanding to a certain number of offices. Finally the article itself does not indicate notability. This company seems like a mid level distributor with little independent identity and no media coverage. Feel free to point out how I am mistaken. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:

POV much? - a global importer, agency and distributor of exclusive lifestyle products, managing a portfolio of fashion, accessories, perfumes and cosmetics, leather goods and homewares brands
You know you're clutching at straws when the article itself attempts to argue business notability: Bluebell has engaged in a number of public discussions, primarily via symposium and press release authorired by Bluebell executives. One of it is for Brand Protection due to the issue with counterfeiters being out of control...

Petty trade awards and press release references. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:07, 25 August 2011 (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.