Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baci Lingerie

:{{la|Baci Lingerie}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baci_Lingerie Stats])

:({{Find sources|Baci Lingerie}})

Contested speedy for publicity/notability/copyvio, I did a quick check of a few phrases for copyvio and haven't found them in current edition. Possibility of notability, bringing to AfD for consensus vs a speedy. Tawker (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

::Note - article does require considerable cleanup, does read as advert right now -- Tawker (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Comment. The copyvio examples listed in the speedy nom were removed by the article creator while the nom was pending. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Are there guidelines for notability of businesses that we could review before voting? Bali88 (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

:*The relevant guideline is WP:CORP. A quick check of the article's citations indicates they are mostly reprinted press releases. (The Adult Video News source is notorious for this.) Independent RS coverage is a problem here. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

::*I don't think AVN sources are press releases. Apart from that philanthropic works and multiple awards shows notability.--Talpatra (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

:Tentative keep - this brand of lingerie seems to be carried in a decent number of stores. However, the extensive citing of AVN is not ideal. The sources do appear to be mainly press releases. If the sources can be bolstered, I'd support keeping the article. :-) Bali88 (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, significant amount of secondary source discussion and recognition with multiple awards. — Cirt (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2014 (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.