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 keep. If a rename is needed, it can go through the normal move process. RL0919 (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete There are quite a number of non primary sources to be found immediately with the default google search. However, they are all routine business reporting, or the reporting of the single event selling of some of the iconic brand store chains it owned. There is nothing that I could find to indicate notability of this subject in its own right, and notability cannot be inherited from the iconic brands it held. Aoziwe (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per Scott Davis, etc. below, yes I now accept there is sufficient sustained and broad coverage. And yes, rename and merge, with redirects from previous names. Aoziwe (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Speciality Fashion Group has been a well known corporate brand owner in Australia for a while. It is a listed company and on the ASX 500. It has appeared regularly in business columns (e.g. search on pages from The Australian and pages from the AFR) - not every article in those lists has significant coverage but there is enough there even from two 5 second Google searches that show that the company is notable and reliable sources exist. Bookscale (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - more searches from Inside Retail, another article from the Sydney Morning Herald. I surely don't need to demonstrate any more. There are page after page of news articles on it if you go past the linkedin profiles and other non notable Google search returns. It may be appropriate to rename the article to its current name but that's not a matter for AfD. Bookscale (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a lot of what you refer to, and yes there is no doubt at all that it exists. My concern is that a lot of the above seems to be very repetative routine business reporting. I do like to keep content if at all possible. Can you point to a few references in particular which would support a little in-depth more than permastub article, and I may well change my !vote. Aoziwe (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1, 2, 3, as examples. The problem is that SFG is a brand-owner, so its work is always inexplicably caught up with its brands in news articles. But surely a company that owns (or owned) so many well-known clothing brands is itself notable? Bookscale (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming back to me. But surely a company that owns (or owned) so many well-known clothing brands is itself notable? - well that is definitely WP:INHERIT? There seems to be only three things with the company - please correct me if I am wrong: 1: it owned/bought a few well-known brands; 2: it got into some financial trouble; 3: it sold a few of the brands and recovered. It might be possible to build up a non stub article by carefully going through many many references over time and developing a history in the article and hence demonstrating sustained coverage, but it still might not be broad coverage if it never makes it out of the "finance/business pages". It there anything else to demonstrate broad coverage? Did it ever do anything other than own a hand full of clothing store chains. Did it ever make the news for something not directly related to clothing retail? I like to keep content as I said earlier, but I just cannot see what there is to keep at this point. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That a Wikipedia article is not well-written or comprehensive is not an indicator of notability; there are plenty of sources (some listed above) which would provide sufficient material to do a better job, and thus the correct thing to do is to allow that to occur. In terms of asking whether this company ever "made the news for something not directly related to clothing retail," when was the last time IBM made the news for something not directly related to computers? Companies tend to be notable primarily for doing what they do; asking for notability beyond that seems unnecessary. TheOtherBob 19:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That a Wikipedia article is not well-written or comprehensive is not an indicator of notability - agreed; which would provide sufficient material to do a better job - sorry but I do not see what will nontrivially improve it past the three stages I mentioned above - I am happy to be corrected; try googling "ibm solar power". I was not saying a subject has to be multifacited to be notable. I was say if it is multifacited, it makes it easier to demonstrate notability and was asking if such existed. Aoziwe (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources provided above are fully sufficient, as they are significant reports from reliable sources that go fairly far in depth about the company. Moreover, I'm always hesitant to delete an article about a company listed on a national exchange, as such companies tend to be notable in many or most cases. TheOtherBob 19:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is very brief, only 2 sentences. Teraplane (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Teraplane: please remember that AfD is not cleanup. Have you read any of the comments above about the notability of the company? Bookscale (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the comments. Only suggesting that if the article remains so sparse and undetailed, it's not worth keeping. Teraplane (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being sparse and undetailed is not an argument for deletion. Wikipedia has many sparse and undetailed articles on notable topics. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ASX-listed company which operated six of the largest and most well known fashion chains in Australia until 2018 and still owns one of them. AfD is not cleanup, and this company has abundant sources if anyone could be bothered. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace As a listed company, annual reports and stock exchange announcements should provide scope to expand. But as it has remained as a stub article since created over 3 years ago with little attempt to date to expand, suggest moving to draft space to allow time to expand. Just because a company is ASX listed doesn't automatically make it notable, turnover of $148 million is fairly small by listed company standards. Happy to reconsider my position if someone has an attempt at improving before the AfD closes though. Bromptop (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not cleanup, and it is certainly not a means of compelling people to improve articles on notable topics under threat of deletion. The comment about turnover is a bit disingenuous because it refers to the figure after they sold five of their six major fashion chains, given that they were making turnover of nearly a billion dollars a year prior to that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@The Drover's Wife: the reason the article is up for AfD is that it is not up to minimum standard, or in your words a 'crap article'. Surviving an AfD but not addressing the issues will inevitably result in the article being nominated again in the future. Best way to address is not to whinge about why has it been nominated, but make an effort to improve that will both enhance it chances of surviving this AfD and not attracting a future nomination. The AfD has at least another 5 days to run, so plenty of time for someone to address if motivated, or if it is moved to draft space, 6 months. Bromptop (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being a crap article on a notable subject is not an argument for deletion. Neither is the possibility that someone, somewhere, in the future, might fail to do WP:BEFORE when nominating a notable article for deletion. Wikipedians are not here to do work on your command because you feel like giving orders. That is fundamentally not how this project works. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Drover's Wife: you are right, Wikipedians are not here to do work on my or anybody else's command, never suggested they were. The reality is that the article is up for deletion, and based on opinions expressed so far, it could go either way, so like it or not, there maybe a finite window. If you had dedicated the amount of time you have on this page to improving the article that you have to trying to discredit the opinions of those who disagree with your own, you would probably be well on the way to creating a good article by now. Bromptop (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe it's important to make the point that an ASX-listed company that made turnover of nearly a billion dollars in 2017 and owned a substantial portion of Australia's major fashion chains is notable and should be given equal treatment to say, a footballer who has played one game in a professional league and has a crap article and not have demands for an instant remake to avoid deletion. This attitude of demanding rapid salvage operations to stop articles on objectively notable topics in certain areas from being deleted needs to stop. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Point noted, but we need to deal with the reality rather than what should or shouldn't happen, in 5 days the article may be gone. Beefing up the article may not save it, but surely it won't do any harm? Ball is in your court of those who want to keep. Bromptop (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the ball is in the court of people who are demanding objectively notable topics get a makeover on their whim under threat of deletion and need to stop it. One single "delete" !voter has advanced any kind of argument whatsoever relating to notability or Wikipedia deletion guidelines whatsoever: the rest haven't even tried to mount an argument to challenge its notability but are just demanding it be improved on their whim. The more these people learn through failed AfDs that those tactics need to stop, the better. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - short and incomplete article is a reason to expand it, not delete it. There's a link up the top of this page to a guide that includes Wikipedia:GDBN advice on what should be done before deciding deletion is the solution. I see no evidence of this having been attempted yet. --Scott DavisTalk 12:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Updated comment: Also Rename and merge from predecessor. I set about cleaning up the top of the article. The business was renamed to City Chic Collective over a year ago, so that is the name the article should now have. Prior to being named Specialty Fashion Group, it appears that the company was Miller's Retail Limited and I discovered that Wikipedia already has a Miller's Retail article. That article should be merged with this one, renamed to the current company name, and updated. I'm not an expert on companies or clothes, so hope that someone else can contribute to the content. --Scott DavisTalk 13:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with merging the Miller's article is that CCC/SFG doesn't actually own the Miller's chain anymore, and most people would reasonably assume that article would be about the chain, not its now-renamed one-time parent company. Given the content, though, it would make sense to merge the parent company content here and keep that as an article about the chain. I agree that this should probably be renamed to City Chic Collective though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: This an AfD forSpecialty Fashion Group, so it's a bit hard to merge and redirect to itself. It would also not make a lot of sense to merge one of the country's largest discount fashion chains to its former parent company. Probably a good idea to read AfDs and articles a little bit more closely before !voting next time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, la-di-la! People have been moving the deckchairs around today - I meant City Chic Collective but that has now been redirected & is how the article now starts. I think I'll leave you all to it. Johnbod (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: That could be my fault - I turned round the lead sentence to put the current name first, but did not move the article while the AFD is ongoing. I stopped when I realised there was also an article Miller's Retail written in present tense about a listed company with a business called "Miller's Fashion Club", but that article seems to have received little maintenance since 2006 before the company changed name to Specialty Retail Group. It could be appropriate (to address The Drover's Wife's comment) to spin out an article about Miller's Fashion Club/Millers Woman as a business formerly owned by Miller's Retail/SFG, and now owned by Noni B/Mosaic Brands, but at the moment, there is one sentence 14 years out of date, and I haven't found a relevant parent article yet. --Scott DavisTalk 00:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - retail is clearly in as fluid a state Down Under as where I am. I'm in favour of keeping something, but in as few articles as can be managed. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - have struck previous vote as some editors have now expressed an interest in making an effort to improve. Support renaming this article to City Chic Collective. Bromptop (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2020 (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.