Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Associated Apparel Industries, Inc.

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. Consensus that additions by Fiachra10003 establish notability. (non-admin closure) J 947 21:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Apparel Industries, Inc.[edit]

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

PROD contested by TonyTheTiger. My PROD reasoning was as follows: "lots of mentions in Wall Street Journal archives, but almost all are routine reports of earnings, losses, or personnel changes. no in-depth profiles or features. nothing to indicate they were a central leader in the field. checked for book mentions & got one trivial mention in a book about the history of the bra. again no in-depth coverage." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a number of citations from the New York Times and Chicago Tribune meeting WP:SECONDARY. Based on these, there's almost certainly more to add from the regional business press of the late 1920s and early 1930s once anyone cares to research these. This article needs fleshing out as a tale of the managerial capitalism of the late 1920s and early 1930s, not deleting. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG, article reflects this thanks to Fiachra10003. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Nice historical piece. I'll see if I can come up with an illustration, that will make life happier for all and won't take too many minutes out of my day. Carrite (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, my newspapers.com subscription just expired, so never mind... Carrite (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:05, 10 March 2017 (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.