Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anchor Blue Clothing Company


 * 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. — CharlotteWebb 15:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Anchor Blue Clothing Company
Contested prod of a California clothing store. With the recent office request to be wary against articles on commercial ventures, I believe this could stand some wider discussion. Abstain myself.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  22:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible Keep. Why on Earth would you nominate for deletion an article for a company that has 200 stores in the U.S., and shows proper references establishing its notability? There are pizza restaurant chains with less than a dozen stores that have easily passed AfD with far less going for them. wikipediatrix 23:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because, like I said above, with the recent office request to be wary against articles on commercial ventures, this could stand some wider discussion. Note that I said 'abstain' earlier.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What is this recent office request you keep invoking? Can you provide a link? wikipediatrix 12:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's on the email list. Here's a direct link to the conversation through the web interface: . &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 22:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Per wikipediatrix, I wondered the same thing. Just so we compare apples to apples, the clothing retailer Designer Depot has less than 10 stores, the artlce cites absolutely no references or sources and I find no "cultural phenomenon" aspect to it.  I sometimes get the feeling people make afd nominations just because they personally never heard of the subject, which I thought was the whole point of having articles; to educate them on something notable they've never heard of. --Marriedtofilm 23:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, the "X article exists, therefore Y article should be kept" argument doesn't work because at any one time there are many articles at Wikipedia that properly shouldn't be. It gets a little stronger when an article that has clearly been kept after scrutiny is compared, but even then the Criticisms section of the Pokémon test make it less than ironclad when it comes to community acceptance. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 22:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, that comment was about how such a small retailer that had an article for more than 11 months never had that scrutiny, and yet this 200+ store chain gets pounded on within days of its creation. --Marriedtofilm 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough then. On the point about unequal scrutiny, Wikipedia is large and it's not uncommon for large discrepancies like that to happen. Theoretically it evens out in the "end". &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 23:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, 200 locations. Gazpacho 01:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Currently, the WP:CORP standard is not satisfied, as only 2 of the 4 references cited in the article are about Anchor Blue (#2 and #3 are about a parent corporation, and Anchor Blue is only mentioned in one sentence).  Of the two that are about the subject of this article, the first seems fairly trivial, so that leaves only one article of substance. Valrith 02:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There are actually 3 references listed that are primarily about Anchor Blue. Ah yes, there is 2.  3 additional references added, all primarily about Anchor Blue bringing the amount articles about AB to 5.  This is more than normal for such a small stub and easily following WP:CORP guidlines.  The trivial opinion of the St. Petersberg Times source is POV. --Marriedtofilm 02:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Wikipediatrix/Marriedtofilm. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Safely over the bar.  Dei zio  talk 15:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As much as I've never heard of it outside this article, it passes WP:CORP and that's what matters. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 22:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Radiant's concerns about this article, and that a wider discussion was wise.  It does appear to be sufficiently notable though. --Elonka 03:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.