Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Gear (Kings Road)

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 reliable sources have been added during the AfD to demonstrate notability —αlεx•mullεr 20:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gear (Kings Road)[edit]

Delete this boutique fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A small boutique that has no notability, fails WP:CORP. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 18:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article has been begun by a new editor, West one girl (talk · contribs · logs). She should have decorated the article with a 'stub' notification, but obviously hasn't. As her contribution log shows, she's previously done good work on the similar article Granny Takes a Trip, and clearly has an interest in this area and expanding the article. Suggestion: someone put a 'stub' notification on the article, withdraw the AfD, let West one girl work on it over the next fortnight, and then revisit. I feel that this is a badly advised AfD - very close, unintentionally, to WP:BITE.--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response if she wants to move it to user space to work on it, she's free to do so, as of now we are rating whether it's ready to be a WP encyclopedic article. My suggestion is that she userfy it and only put it out into main space when it's ready. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The shop gets a mention by the V&A Museum - the world's most authoritative fashion museum. Clearly notable. I've put in the V&A as a source. Let the article grow in community space in the spirit of open and cooperative collaboration which is the founding principles of the project. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 10:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in more refs and expanded it to demonstrate that this shop is widely considered notable. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 11:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From my own Googling, there appears to be sufficient coverage of the shop, which was somewhat influential in its day, to merit an article. I'd wager that some time spent in the periodicals/newspaper archives of a decent library would turn up even more. --Sturm 11:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient independent sources. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:04, 28 February 2008 (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.