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 delete.  Sandstein  17:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seaside Chic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article started life as a spam entry. Contested speedy. IP editor who removed speedy tag also removed the spammier content, leaving just a completely unreferenced neologism. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary for terms that also happen to be the names of stores. Movingboxes (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:DICDEF -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 09:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge : Good candidate for List_of_chics or UrbanDictionary.com. After a little more reading: This seems a poor definition of "Seaside Chic". It's already on List_of_chics. Maybe with a source, that definition should be added. Johnrheavner (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we could find documentation that the term even exists outside of the name of this store perhaps. Movingboxes (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to exist. See my updated text above. Johnrheavner (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the "inspired by the sea" sense described by the article? The article's definition is different that what I'm seeing at List_of_chics. Movingboxes (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is different, however of the same theme, which I suppose is seastuff. It's said above adequately, the term is highly a unreferenced neologism. Considering the link to the store was used originally, I think this is a fan of the clothing who developed her own definition to reference it. I'm new to Wiki contributing, so I'm not sure how common term-defining pages are accepted. It would seem to me List_of_chics should resolve this. Johnrheavner (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI'm pretty new myself! I personally would support redirecting this to List_of_chics without adding the unreferenced material to the actual list itself. Movingboxes (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:DICDEF. Anyone can invent a new chic. That doesn't warrant inclusion. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 11:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DICDEF as the hangon appeal iself states "It is only a description of the term." Ningauble (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2008 (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.