Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrianna Papell

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. Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianna Papell[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete 2+ year-old contested PROD with no improvement in the interim; most refs. are dead, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It's clearly a well-known brand, but I can't find any coverage outside tabloids, sales sites, blogs, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was a relatively detailed article about the company and its strategy in WWD in 1988: [1] – via HighBeam (subscription required) . Not enough in itself but may contribute to WP:NCORP with other sources. AllyD (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well-known brand but privately held company, which probably explains relative dearth of sourcing, although searches in wsj and NYTimes get useful hits. I'm not sufficiently interested in fashion to source it. But deletion seems silly as it discourages those who might be so inclined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 01:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. A directory-listing only, with no possibility for expansion. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep what's verifiable. 82.132.186.90 (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.