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 no consensus. No participation through two relisting periods, this one's a no-consensus by definition. WP:NPASR applies. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bag charm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

OR, doesn't seem notable. buffbills7701 23:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, unreferenced OR. PaintedCarpet (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being unreferenced is not itself grounds for deletion. Notability is, but a search for 'bag charm' or 'handbag charm" generates a lot of results. Silly though it may be, this is a real thing, and there is enough coverage to pass the nobility requirement.[1][2][3] TheBlueCanoe 00:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's certainly a thing, and a very popular thing at that. A close connection to Keychain here, but something distinct. I saw several hits for craft books in Google Books telling readers "how to craft bag charms"/handbag charms, a 2007 publication commenting "surely no one can have failed to notice the trend for handbag charms." for example. This Feb 2005 article from ELLEGirl very briefly describes the trend and how it started, and its longevity means it goes beyond a simple flash-in-the-pan trend. Mabalu (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2014 (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.