Deletion of WindowsWear

Comment: This article does not fail , please find below additional sources of coverage that prove notability.  Each link is from a unique source and multiple mentions by the same source are not included
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: All the articles from major fashion publications are not just mentions, WindowsWear is the subject matter of the full article.  These are all major fashion publications and I am not sure how many more different major fashion publications are necessary to make it notable.  Fashion is a visual field and the depth comes from the amount of content from images vs. content from text and words.  These are all full page articles and these publications don't talk about un-reputable / un-notable subjects.  In addition there are mentions from national and international sources, reliable media, as well as reputable speaking engagements, and a celebrity public following.  If you do not believe that the depth of coverage is adequate, then by the definition of : " If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple1 independent sources should be cited to establish notability."  This is proven in the above where multiple independent sources are cited.  In regards to , "the original editor spends all his (limited) time trying to fight the deletion of the article. He is reluctant to make the edits that would change the minds of those recommending delete (assuming they even choose to revisit the article or discussion, which often doesn't happen) because he does not want to put so much work into an article if it's just going to wind up being deleted. So instead he spends his time on the deletion discussion explaining his position, and tries to convince others that he does indeed have verifiable information on the subject." - I believe this applies directly this is situation and would appreciate if you could allow this process to continue in the spirit of . Special:Contributions/199.47.72.52|199.47.72.52
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:CHANCE||WP:CHANCE)

Comment: Then why did you claim there is a "consensus?"  Only three editors have opined.  One is you, who created the article and have been tagging Wikipedia left and right to promote WindowsWear.  Clearly you have a strong interest in promoting this site.  Another is me, and I nominated it for deletion.  It's worth reading .  Since this debate was relisted due to lack of consensus, there haven't been any new policy-based arguments presented, or any additional editors involved
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CONSENSUS)

Comment: This doesn't fall in with my reading of grounds to fail . It has mentions in national and international sources, including reliable media. Note that it was previously prodded by same editor. Several editors appear to have been working to improve and lose the promotional and  stuff and, as it's a new page about a relatively new company that has some sound references, I'd suggest allowing this process to continue for a bit in the spirit of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:NPOV||WP:CHANCE)

Comment: Hello, unknown IP!  I did not say that all the articles from major fashion publications are just mentions.  I asked how this fits .  Which publications are major?  Which are not just mentions?  What I see above is a long list with a lot of junk, such as Sophie Vergara's twitter.  Let's see some specifics.  As for , this seems to involve reading the mind of the original editor.  I'm not qualified to do that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:CHANCE)

Comment: Hi Logical Cowboy, thanks for your comments above. Sources listed are not 'passing mentions' by my definition. In 4 of the 8 references listed (Elle, Time Out, Glamour, Lucky), WindowsWear is the subject of the piece – actually 6 out of 8 if you count the two lesser quality refs of Refinery29 and Fashinvest. The Wall Street Journal is a good solid ref for establising names of the founders and the existence of the company, albeit a paragraph in a piece about life after Lehman Brothers. WWD – also a respectable business-facing source – gives us a 100-plus word paragraph in a piece on Christmas window displays, in which one of the company founders is used as a commentator on trends for Christmas display timings. Back to  and I'm struck by the fact that this suggests that if coverage is not substantial 'then multiple independent sources should be cited'. I'd say WindowsWear does provide multiple sources via these 8 references – enough to support the existing article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: There is something funny going on with voting'''.  An IP tagged Mickey's earlier comments with a Keep vote https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FWindowsWear&diff=590897739&oldid=590891196.  Now Mickey is voting Keep (again?) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FWindowsWear&diff=592539558&oldid=592358765.  This seems like double voting/ballot stuffing/
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:ILLEGIT)

Comment: Hi Libby, thanks for your comments.  looks for independent, in-depth, coverage in reliable sources.  Most of the sources listed above are just "mentions"--how do you see that fitting in ?  I'd also question the reliability and independence of many of the above sources.  With regard to the point that I previously PRODded this article, in case you didn't know it is pretty standard to take something to an AfD if it is dePRODded.  In this case, it was dePRODded by the author of the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:CORPDEPTH)