Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maison de Bonneterie

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 of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 06:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maison de Bonneterie[edit]

Not a notable company, based on WP:CORP. Tim Pierce 06:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Daniel Case 06:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems to be a major fashion store in Amsterdam, and as it has been around since 1889 in what appears from images on the web to be a fine example of luxurious late 19th century commercial architecture, I like to give it the benefit of the doubt. u p p l a n d 06:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & expand per Uppland. Scoo 09:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Leading and historic department store in an important city. There quite a few articles about similar individual stores. See category:Department stores. Calsicol 11:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'd like to say as unencyclopedic/non-notable (individual stores IMHO are non-notable) but how about as unverifiable unless a news/magazine article can be quoted about the store itself? Zunaid 11:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that include Harrods? You are confusing unverifiable with unverified. Articles aren't deleted for lacking references. Honbicot 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dammit! I KNEW someone was going to come up with a good counterexample. What I should have added in the first place is the caveat "except in exceptional circumstances". Harrods is an exceptional circumstance. Zunaid 08:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not a counterexample, though. There are plenty of third-party published works about Harrods, demonstrating that it satisfies the primary WP:CORP criterion. Take ISBN 0233996176 and ISBN 0330298003, for examples. Uncle G 16:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, for the histroicness of the shop. Evil Eye 12:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've heard of it and I've only been to Amsterdam once. Honbicot 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to delete this article. It was one of a large set of copyright violations persistently submitted and resubmitted by User:EuroJohn. However, please continue to discuss whether the subject satisfies WP:CORP. Uncle G 17:24, 5 January 2006 (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.