Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noir Leather (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Noir Leather
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing special. Fails WP:GNG. Störm  (talk)  18:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 18:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 18:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as noted at the previous discussion the store is considered an institution and is covered very extensivley in major independent reliable sources. Clearly notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- a store of local significance only & no improvement since the last AfD. Sources are local; don't meet WP:AUD / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  18:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep Here is another source
 * • Witkowski, D'Anne. "DIRTY LITTLE SECRET." Between the Lines. 2008. HighBeam Research. (March 4, 2018). Link
 * So with the one on the article that is two full articles. Personally I like to see three, but it is in the range of SIGCOV that usually passed AfD. Found third full article source. Jbh  Talk  19:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 19:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So with the one on the article that is two full articles. Personally I like to see three, but it is in the range of SIGCOV that usually passed AfD. Found third full article source. Jbh  Talk  19:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 19:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I'm not convinced about the coverage listed above. For example, https://themetdet.com/noir-leather/ is the type of coverage one would expect from a local outlet: "local store does well". It's routine bordering on advertorial. "Longest-running boutique in X neigbourhood" is hardly a claim of significance. This content belongs on the store's Facebook page, not in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Three independent publishers choosing to write in-depth articles spaced over years is pretty much the definition of significant coverage. I do not see how you can argue lack of depth when each article is multi-paragraph, discusses several topics including its history and how it fit into the city's social scene, including the effects it had on the local neighborhood - they certainly are not the type of coverage envisioned by CORPDEPTH. Nor, does 'it is only local' really stand up when local is Detroit. The metro area has 4.3 million people. That is a pretty significant media market with many, many local stores to choose from - local coverage is a valid arguement when you are talking places like metro Iuka, Mississippi but not so much for the second largest metro area in the Midwest. Jbh  Talk  03:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My take on these sources is that they are routine bordering on advertorial. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Per Jbh . 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't buy this. It's a leather shop covered by ~3 decent sources, but in context to the USA it is not 'famous'. It is highly questionable whether fame should ever be factor in determining encyclopedia value, but coverage that meets WP:GNG is. And the fact this store is attached to a 'scene', however local, is a claim of relevance. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2018 (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.