Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retail design


 * 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. &mdash; Caknuck 19:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Retail design

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This seems like original research Rackabello 05:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What did you do to determine that? Did you do the necessary homework before nomination, of looking for sources on the subject to see whether this is a new concept not discussed in sources?  Given that 1 minute's effort with Google Books turns up several whole books on the subject of retail design, such as ISBN 071482562X, I suspect that you did not.  As the Guide to deletion and Deletion policy both tell you, please do the necessary homework and look for sources before nominating something for deletion on the grounds that it is a novel concept not documented in any sources. Uncle G 20:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then how about adding those sources to the article? Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to do so. Uncle G 09:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And you have immediately read that book to assert that the article is not original research anyway?--Svetovid 23:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 01:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per UncleG-- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 12:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Krakatoa  Katie  22:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep See . This article just needs some work.  ~  Wi ki  her mit   23:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Wikihermit above; article just needs work. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It compares to a much stubbier article in my watchlist, Manufacturing operations. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Recognized discipline with dedicated college degree programs. ~ Infrangible 00:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Everything the retail sector does from the ground up is calculated to bring in sales, from store layout to product placement and building design. Since the term has been used in books there's doubtless sources. QuagmireDog 00:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep conditional on citing some references. Uncle G makes a good point that the responsibility lies with the nominator to first try to improve the article.  --Kevin Murray 13:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment-- Why should the nominator have to improve the article? Not that I favor deletions, but this one has room for improvement.  If I'd written it, I wouldn't be satisfied with it as it stands now.  Sorry, but it's lengthy and not at all informative; maybe an example or two of retail design would make this article interesting.Mandsford 02:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, The topic is unquestionably valid. The opening paragraph is essentially a definition (of course) and then the balance varies from mundane to readily challengable (in my view as someone in a closely related design profession). With the appropriate leadership, this is fixable - but "as is" the article has no notable or merited content. Pever 04:18, 19 June 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.