Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just Jeans

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 as SNOW (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just Jeans[edit]

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

Non-notable. No reliable secondary sources available other than the one used as ref. 103.6.159.83 (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major Australian and New Zealand retail chain. Even a brief review of Google News search results turns up lots of useful sources. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a massive Australian retail corporation: not only did they start out with one of the most major clothing retail chains in the country, but they subsequently bought six others, all among the most major retail chains in Australia. (For non-Australians, it's equivalent to AfDing American Apparel.) It actually badly needs to be separated into Just Group (for the corporation) and Just Jeans (for their subsidiary chain of stores) because they're both ridiculously notable and easily fleshed out. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with statements above, I'm surprised the article is as underdeveloped as it currently is, but topic meets GNG. It just needs references added to the article (it looks like it has been written using at least one or two sources, but the editor(s) haven't cited) -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG, just requires further expansion and cleanup -- Ianblair23 (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above reasons. Hughesdarren (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely a notable bi-national company which passes WP:CORPDEPTH Ajf773 (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Just a poor article. Major retail chain, almost into national folklore. Heaps of secondary references available. Aoziwe (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick check of the "News" link above shows the company is in the news for two different issues in the last month (workplace relations and ethical sourcing of product). This shows that the brand and company are well known and significant in Australia, even though neither item is worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia article as current events, they demonstrate notability. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:05, 4 December 2016 (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.