Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van De Velde (Lingerie)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Van De Velde (Lingerie)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't seem to be particularly notable. —Tom Morris 16:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved the article to Van de Velde N.V.. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *poke* 00:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable lingerie line about which not much can be said except WP:ITEXISTS.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 20:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no strong opinion either way, but just wanted to point out there's a lengthy case study in this economics book on this company's decision to move their operations away from Asia to Europe. - ManicSpider (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 06:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *poke* 20:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pieces in business press like Bloomberg  suggests its notable enough for inclusion.--Milowent • talkblp-r  07:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Another RS with significant coverage: The Washington Post . --Lambiam 20:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - Lingerie company that clearly meets WP:GNG per the sources provided above and via a general search. The company was founded in 1919 for Christ's sake. The article isn't about the lingerie itself; it obviously was misnamed. Instead of making a big production out of this, you should have just moved the article to Van de Velde N.V.. N.V. is the Dutch term for a public limited liability company and Wikipedia has plenty of articles on such companies: European Multilateral Clearing Facility N.V., InTouch N.V., Option N.V., Postbank N.V., TNT N.V.. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I moved the article to Van de Velde N.V.. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep notable major company, as shown by the article & the sources.    DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as per DGG, Uzma Gamal. Edward321 (talk) 15:15, 30 January 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.