Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bright Eyes Sunglasses

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. JohnCD (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Eyes Sunglasses[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~Keep—10 mentions in abstracts in Australasian Business Intelligence found via Highbeam Research. I've sourced a few statements and started cleaning up the article, I'll work on it some more tomorrow. It's a week keep because, though there are 10 articles, they are all in one work. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 02:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4 articles total, in two sources now. I've finished cleaning up the article, and what's left is sourced, relevant, and shows notability. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The notability requirements need coverage in multiple different sources, not just a lot of articles from the same publication (WP:GNG says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."). While the Australasian Business Intelligence articles seem to have substantial info, the Bloomberg article only has a passing mention. Further coverage in another publication is needed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A chain of over 110 stores at its peak makes this a Wikipedia-worthy business entity. While Colapeninsula's observation about current sources hailing from one publication is technically accurate, it also follows that there is no doubt other stuff out there in the long grass, such as THIS PROFILE on the Australian Franchise Business website or THIS BIT from Inside Franchising. Carrite (talk) 15:20, 7 May 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.