Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge Satchel 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. (former-admin close) Secret account 05:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Cambridge Satchel Company

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable; simply an advertisement for an obscure company. SimpsonDG (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Reluctant keep there's enough coverage out there to get past WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The source in the article, from The Guardian, is significant coverage, as is this from online magazine Fashionista; plus the company is up for an (admittedly minor) award this year... There's also a lot of minor coverage (mentions of the company seem to abound throughout current fashion literature), which added together implies notability. Yunshui 雲水 07:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wrote the article on the basis of the company's notability as evident in its coverage by the Guardian, not as an advertisement.  Sandstein   08:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, albeit weakly. It would appear that there are indeed sources talking about the business.  There's a human interest story of the week aspect about its foundation, and it would appear that its products have become a passing fad in the world of fashion.  I don't see this kind of coverage as making a case that this business has "had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."  It apparently makes satchels that some folks like.  A worthy achievement, but not the sort of thing that equates to the sort of long term significance that endures for centuries and makes the business an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It has significant coverage in reliable and independent publications, and being a top selling fashion accessory is a significant and demonstrable effect on society,  so it satisfies WP:N and WP:ORG. There was the Guardian article, and in addition I added coverage from Fashionista. There is another article about the company in Telegraph (UK), which says 2012 sales are expected to hit $16 million. There is an article in Women's Wear Daily.  When people here pronounce that something is a "passing fad" they are engaging in pointless crystal ball gazing, and such claims should be ignored by the closing admin, unless they are quoting a reliable source.  The company is one of the top selling brands at Urban Outfitters, and has been covered in publications around the world. Edison (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The quoted source said that this brand had become "a cult among twenty-something fashion bloggers".  This did not suggest long term notability to me. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Notability is not temporary, per WP:N. Yesterday's notable fad is still notable. Besides that, the reference does not predict that everyone will soon lose interest in the product. Its predicted sales 5 years from now is not that relevant to whether multiple reliable and independent sources have significant coverage of it now. Edison (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Violates notability under WP:COMPANY. This is a small, obscure company that has no "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education". A couple of mentions in minor publications do not make it notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. SimpsonDG (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is not a minor publication, its coverage of the company is not a mere mention, and selling a great number of products and being fawned over by fashion blogggers is, at least, a "demonstrable effect on culture or society". It might not be a lasting or significant effect, but that's not required; notability is not temporary.  Sandstein   08:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep There is sufficient significant coverage to establish notability per the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, and IMO has slight influence on "culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education", so it borderline meets WP:COMPANY. HurricaneFan25  &#124;  talk  23:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The influence and effect thing seems irrelevant here, since WP:ORGIN (already linked above) states that "Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product." This company has received more than enough coverage in reliable sources to meet that requirement. Alzarian16 (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:CORP is clearly met, as evidenced by the following sources: "British satchel maker takes fashion world by storm" and "Bag lovers go back to school for inspiration: Mother-and-daughter team's satchel company becomes 2011 global hit" from The Guardian, "Cambridge Satchel Company Sees Growth" from Women's Wear Daily, "Mother of invention gave the satchel a funky twist - HOW I MADE IT Julie Deane Founder of Cambridge Satchel Company" from The Sunday Times, and "A schoolbag is the new It bag" from the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Goodvac (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2011 (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.