Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Be&D

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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be&D[edit]

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

It may've been associated with notables but I'm finding anything to suggest improvement including better sourcing, with the best results here, here, here and here. Pinging past editors @Meatsgains, Mean as custard, and Hmains:. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has been here since 2006. Can we PLEASE get some commentary? Courcelles (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I'll freely admit that I'm not an expert in this field, but I was able to find this and this fairly easily which may be reliable coverage for the topic of fashion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

DGG For the sake of consensus, would you comment? SwisterTwister talk 18:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Further good referencing would be necessary for notability. And there is not even the most basic information: sales figures, number of employees, location of business. Our rule is NOT DIRECTORY, but this is not even up to the minimal standards of a directory. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete refs 2 and 3 and the "official site" are dead links, web searches turn up sales outlets, and the occasional press release, notability is not inherited, so it doesn't matter who uses these handbags, no in-depth coverage of the company anywhere, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2015 (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.