Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane norman


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 04:41Z 

Jane norman

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No real assertion of notability, the number of stores prevented me from speedying it. Willing to withdraw if notability is asserted by whatever means. J Milburn 15:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this. If someone wants to start a new article with correct capitalization that asserts notability and gives more than the price of their products, then we can revisit it. -R. fiend 16:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in a way it needs to be kept. However, it must be moved to Jane Norman and be completely re-written.  I know that this make of handbag is very popular with teenagers for school books... lots of my friends have them. (I know this couldn't be written in the article, but it is just re-enforcing it's notability).  If someone was willing to re-write it then it would be a useful article.   Asics   talk  16:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I basically agree, but the problem is moving the article and rewriting it completely isn't exactly "keeping" it, is it? Deleting/rewiting it from scratch and removing the text/rewriting from scratch are almost the same thing here. Far too often people vote "keep but rewrite every single word", resulting in the article being kept, but not necessarily rewritten. In cases like this the keep should be contingent on a rewrite. -R. fiend 16:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Rather than arguing about the system, why don't we try and work out what to do with this article? If we can have some proof that it meets the primary notability criteria, (and perhaps WP:CORP) then it can be moved and rewritten. The fact that you know people who have items made by the brand does not make it notable. Until we have that proof, and, preferably, someone willing to rewrite the article, it should be deleted. J Milburn 16:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep This is definately a genuinely notable high street chain. According to an article in the The Times 25th January 2007 it has 106 stores in the UK and plans to open 100 more in 2007. I cycle past one every day on my way to work (possibly not enough of a reason to keep the article!). That said clearly the article as it stands is pretty poor and lots of the information in it is not really relevant for an encyclopedia article. It needs more sources, more relevant information and generally needs tidying up / wikifying. I can't agree that it should be deleted for non-notability though. Jules1975 12:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: That is one article, one more and it passes the notability requirements. Just to counter the argument being used by everyone else, I am English, and I have never heard of it. On the other hand, I live in a forgotton corner of the country, and I'm not exactly fashion conscious. Looking for more sources, I found this, the majority of Google hits are directory entries, and a few hits of various people of this name. Does anyone want to work on the article? J Milburn 18:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It genuinely does have 106 stores. Is this not notable even if no-one has written about them in the press? One is in Bluewater shopping centre, one in the Metro Centre in Gateshead. A quick search on Yell suggests there are at least nine stores in London. In any event there is also reference here to an article in the Independent on 30th July 2005. Definately notable. Apologies, I don't have time to write a proper article for this!Jules1975 14:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ok, notability definately established, I will clean it up myself in a little while so that it is at least an acceptable stub. J Milburn 16:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but could use improvement & capitalization SUBWAYguy 22:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per this search. Addhoc 11:13, 10 February 2007 (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.