Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WindowsWear
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
— [[User talk:199.47.72.52|talk]]), 00:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:CHANCE||WP:CHANCE (Wikipedia:Notability)