Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropologie

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 article was substantially rewritten. - FrancisTyers · 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthropologie

Advert for upscale chain of women's clothing stores. Does not meet WP:CORP KarenAnn 15:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Scorpiondollprincess 15:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Redirect to Urban Outfitters, per Isotope23 below. It's a recognizable brand name, at least in several major U.S. cities. I've removed some of the advertisement-like language. Fireplace 16:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No notability stated or implied. It's still an ad, too. "Recognizability" isn't part of the WP delete policy, and it's not recognized in my town. Shrug. Please see WP:CORP per KarenAnn. Tychocat 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Interested to see where you live. Many upscale retailers don't open stores in rural states (maybe the reason you have not heard of it). Because you have not heard of it (and if you haven't heard of this store most likely 95% of the retailers on wikipedia you have not heard of) does not mean it should be deleted. It is a very well-recognized brand. --Shrek05 22:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to parent company Urban Outfitters article. Anthropologie doesn't meet WP:CORP, but UO does.--Isotope23 17:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite or Merge. Deletion doesn;t seem appropriate given that it's a well recognised chain store. Artw 19:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite. See Old Navy and Forth & Towne, labels launched by Gap Inc., Hollister Co. and RUEHL 925, labels launched by Abercrombie & Fitch. WP:CORP does not clearly outline the rules of subsidiary divisions of companies (see General Electric and Lockheed Martin for examples), but if the above four examples are valid (AFAICT none of them were not prior independent labels), Anthropologie probably deserves its own article. Sertrel 23:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it easily meets the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" criteria. Gets 54 Google News hits, which only includes articles from the last month, and several articles are quite in-depth about the division. Doing some more research it seems most of those hits are trivial. However, doing a regular Google Search I got articles about Antropologie specifically and articles with UO being its subject but with information specifically on the Antropologie division. hateless 00:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Massmato 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep please it is subject of multiple non trivial published works Yuckfoo 19:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - one published work is listed that is about the advertising style of the company. Is that "multiple"? Mattisse 12:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Anthropologie is one of the most talked about brands in marketing (It spends no money on advertising). I'll take the time to rewrite the page. Anthropologie is significant upscale apparel retailer. If you haven't heard of it, I am sorry, but that just means you aren't cognizant of middle class - upper middle class retail. Anthropologie is more recognizable and classier than Urban Outfitters and should not be merged either--Shrek05 21:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my opinion back to Keep, in light of Sertrel's comments and Shrek05's rewrite. Fireplace 22:11, 25 July 2006 (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.