Deletion of Cambridge Satchel Company

Comment: Notability is not temporary, per . Yesterday's notable fad is still notable. Besides that, the reference does not predict that everyone will soon lose interest in the product. Its predicted sales 5 years from now is not that relevant to whether multiple reliable and independent sources have significant coverage of it now
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Violates notability under . This is a small, obscure company that has no "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education".  A couple of mentions in minor publications do not make it notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:COMPANY)

Comment: Enough coverage to meet , and IMO has ''slight'' influence on "culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education", so it borderline meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:COMPANY)

Comment: there's enough coverage out there to get past  and . The source in the article, from ''The Guardian'', is significant coverage, as is http://fashionista.com/2011/10/cambridge-satchel-company-the-inspiring-story-behind-fashion-months-most-affordable-it-bag/ this from online magazine ''Fashionista''; plus the company is up for an (admittedly minor) http://www.redonline.co.uk/red-women/red...hot-women-awards/red...hot-women-awards-2011/red-s-hot-women-awards-2011-shortlist award this year... There's also a lot of minor coverage (mentions of the company seem to abound throughout current fashion literature), which added together implies notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ORG)

Comment: It has significant coverage in http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=%22Cambridge+Satchel+Company%22#q=%22Cambridge+Satchel+Company%22&hl=en&safe=off&gl=us&tbm=nws&ei=8SSnTpqJBozogQeXwfwM&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=54a8e79dcfa1fcfc&biw=1280&bih=864multiple reliable and independent publications, and being a top selling fashion accessory is a significant and demonstrable effect on society,  so it satisfies  and . There was the Guardian article, and in addition I added coverage from Fashionista. There is another article about the company in http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/columns/phong-luu/TMG8758541/The-Cambridge-Satchel-Company-gem-of-the-US-market.html Telegraph (UK), which says 2012 sales are expected to hit $16 million. There is an article in http://www.wwd.com/accessories-news/handbags/cambridge-satchels-sees-growth-5129585?navSection=issues&navId=5140952&browsets=1315837727798 Women's Wear Daily.  When people here pronounce that something is a "passing fad" they are engaging in pointless crystal ball gazing, and such claims should be ignored by the closing admin, unless they are quoting a reliable source.  The company is one of the top selling brands at Urban Outfitters, and has been covered in publications around the world
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:ORG)

Comment: The influence and effect thing seems irrelevant here, since  (already linked above) states that ''"Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product."'' This company has received more than enough coverage in reliable sources to meet that requirement
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIN)