Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retail design (2nd nomination)

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The result was Withdrawn no !votes for deletion, article was greatly improved. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retail design

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dicdef, unsourced OR. Last AFD closed with a keep based on "This article just needs some work," but once again, everyone expected everyone else to do the work and thus we just went around in circles and did jack squat. It's always somebody else's problem isn't it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator voted "strong keep" in the articles last AfD - what's changed since then? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I am no longer one of those people who says "keep but add sources" without making any attempt to prove that sources exist. Unfortunately, we have so many people who still do that same freaking thing, thus making a big Gordian knot of WP:SEP... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, you're one of those people who would have an article deleted rather than add some references? It's always someone else's problem isn't it? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From "Strong Keep" to nominating for deletion? Hmmmm. Actually, the correct answer is that it's hard to give a crap one way or the other. Certainly an example of a poorly sourced article, but that makes it one of about 500,000 sitting on WP. Maybe more. Carrite (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I seriously thought this was a huge joke on somebody's part, but apparently not. I am appalled nonetheless. Therefore, I have gone in and added a number of references to the article and have completely rewritten and expanded the history section of the article. This nomination seems to be, to me, an extreme violation of WP:BEFORE. Silver seren^C 02:30, 16 September 2010 (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.