Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watches & Jewellery of Bond Street

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. Sandstein 21:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watches & Jewellery of Bond Street[edit]

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

NOT NEWS -- notable only for a robbery that took place there DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply not enough for convincing notability, searches found some links at Books, News and browsers and nothing else outstanding. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the robbery is somewhat notable, but I do not believe there is anything independently notable at the store at this time. Obviously some crimes DO make a place famous or notorious, such as the Spaghetti House siege but as you can see in that case the crime has an entry itself, not the restaurant. Shritwod (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there was so much about this in the news when it happened (constant airplay on BBC, The Guardian, Sky News, ITV News, Daily Mail, etc.) that it made the shop itself notable. I suggest keeping the article as a reference to this. The article itself has enough reliable sources to verify all information. CuoreAisne (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Vote struck - account was a sock of an indefinitely blocked editor. - Bilby (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This received some media attention, but it seems to mostly center around the time period that the event happened. In other words it received the same type of coverage that most crimes tend to receive, especially if it had an unusual element. What we'd need to establish that this crime was particularly noteworthy is to show that there's a depth of coverage, which is typically displayed by the crime continuing to garner discussion in the news and in academic sources years after the fact. It's really, really difficult for most crimes to show this because the media tends to grab on to a story and then drop it for the newest crime. It's usually the most salacious stuff that remains in the public eye or gains additional coverage. Much of this seems to be fairly routine. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The incident took place in 2014, and in 2015 it was still receiving news coverage (mainly pertaining to the "life-changing injuries" that the security guard at the shop had received, as well as a reminder of the event itself). As it's still a fairly-recent event, it's hard to know if it will receive future in-depth coverage. What it has done though is set a new landmark for the type of incident that can occur in central London, which is what the media has endeavoured to outline.CuoreAisne (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But then isn't it the crime that is notable, and not the retail establishment? In which case there should be an article about the crime? And that's probably a WHOLE different set of notability criteria to take into account.. Shritwod (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we could also go this route. Like I wrote in my original suggestion, I found there is enough mention about the shop in the media sources to name this article after the shop.CuoreAisne (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rework the article completely to be about the crime. Currently it has a very misleading structure, talking about accident mostly and then switching to the gallery story. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reworked the article to focus on crime. NoFame (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)— Firesigns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete One of the references was for a different, nearly identical, robbery held years later. If we can confuse two separate robbery attempts, then I'm hard pressed to see it as particularly unique. There is no real evidence that this crime was anything particularly notable, and certainly nothing beyond the crime to suggest that the store is of note. - Bilby (talk) 14:55, 3 March 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.