Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban Planet


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  21:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Urban Planet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a retail clothing store, not citing any reliable source coverage besides its own self-published website. I tagged this for notability and referencing when it was first created in 2016, but didn't list it for deletion at the time because the potential for notability does exist — but the history since then has consisted of an anonymous IP adding a blatantly advertorial branding statement and removing the maintenance tags in June 2017, which then remained virtually unchanged but for very minor style and formatting adjustments until another anonymous IP stripped the advertorialism two hours ago. In all that time, nobody has ever added any reliable sources to demonstrate notability, but I can't find any quality coverage about it on a Google News search either — all I'm seeing is glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of malls that it happens to have locations in, and entirely unrelated usages like a Time article about the need to reconcile urban growth with environmental sustainability. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but an unsourced statement that a thing simply exists is not what gets it an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * strong delete it's hard to believe this business even actually exists, particularly with "100+" locations, considering there is absolutely no coverage anywhere about them other than their own website ... I almost think this could be a hoax Burley22 (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, its existence does get namechecked in coverage of some of the malls where it happens to have locations — so it's quite verifiable that it exists. It just isn't the subject of enough coverage in its own right to qualify for an article, which isn't the same thing as being a hoax. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 14 January 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.