Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boutique La Vie en Rose

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. Hut 8.5 15:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boutique La Vie en Rose

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

unsourced and no indication of notability. Article created by editor with a WP:conflict of interest. noq (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete—per WP:NOTADVERTISING. There is this article, which if there were even one more like it, and if there were any reason to think it was the same company, which there doesn't seem to be, i would consider sufficient to pass the gng, but every other ghit in a reliable source is merely a passing mention of this company or others with the same name and not a discussion at all. i guess the editor who created the article is to be commended for honesty?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

obviously i missed a bunch of sources, so i'm withdrawing this for now, and will think some more.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as spam and as a copyright violation. Phrases such as "the leading" and "have flourished" mark this out as spam; it's a copyright violation of [1] (warning: that's a horrible site; after you skip the intro you need to get to the "the company" section, which is trickier than it looks). The author has also pasted even more blatant spam on their user page in violation of WP:UP#PROMO, which I have tagged for speedy deletion.RichardOSmith (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per rewrite. Now the spam and copyright violations are addressed (which had to be addressed and speedy deletion would have been the most obvious method) the only remaining cited concern is notability and there appears to be sufficient coverage to meet the WP:GNG RichardOSmith (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, COI issue and written like an advert. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are some potential reliable sources (although they are surprisingly scarce), [2], [3], [4]. Also I believe the 'Boutique' in the name throws off the searches, the company is most commonly called just 'La Vie en Rose' which does pull more ghits. I was going to vote Keep, as the company has a large presence in Canada with numerous stores in prominent locations, however, the lack of reliable third-party information raises considerable concern. France3470 (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have now rewritten the article to include some of the sources mentioned here. Though far from prefect, I believe this article now satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH and addresses previous concerns with it being a copyvio. France3470 (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - An excuse to look up lingerie, for the betterment of the encyclopedia? Hard to pass this one by. The company has boutiques in Canada, Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait, Romania, Vietnam, and Kazakhstan.[5] Here are some reliable sources to support notability: The Windsor Star, IT World Canada, Canada.com, LesAffaires.com, cyberpresse.ca, The Star, cyberpresse.ca, lesaffaires.com. From the first cyberpresse.ca article, "La Senza, La Vie en Rose and Claudel (which owns and Lilianne Lingerie Briere) are the three industry leaders in Quebec and across Canada" --Odie5533 (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article is kept it cannot do so in its current form as it is a copyright violation. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

France3470 appears to have surmounted the task. Thanks France3470! --Odie5533 (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; excellent work. RichardOSmith (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100% KEEP, and someone should add an image. Logo or something...? --Hydao (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NOREASON. RichardOSmith (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources found and added to the article show the article meets the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Provides enough accurate citations to help back up anything in the article that is in question, very salvageble, I feel WP:GNG is fully met. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2011 (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.