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.
Keep Actually this satisfies GNG pretty nicely.
Tinton5 shows there's significant coverage in reliable independent sources. That's enough in this case to keep the article. Also, nom's rationale that the notibility is not enduring seems to be just made up. Enduring notability is not a thing on WP.
192.160.216.52 (
talk)
16:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: There is not a single claim in that article that the brand or the company is anything special. The article is just a blatant company listing. In its current cast, no arguments for 'keep' can possibly be in line with notability guidelines, and promotion/advertising are against policy. The only reliable source provided by Tinton5 is the U.S. Attorneys Eastern District of California reporting on the import of shoes from China under fake invoices to evade millions of $$ of US import taxes, but the mention is missing in the article.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Everything I can find is either a trivial notice or a press release--conveniently, the press releases are so marked, there's not even an advertorial pseudo-news item. DGG (
talk )
23:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Actually this satisfies GNG pretty nicely.
Tinton5 shows there's significant coverage in reliable independent sources. That's enough in this case to keep the article. Also, nom's rationale that the notibility is not enduring seems to be just made up. Enduring notability is not a thing on WP.
192.160.216.52 (
talk)
16:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: There is not a single claim in that article that the brand or the company is anything special. The article is just a blatant company listing. In its current cast, no arguments for 'keep' can possibly be in line with notability guidelines, and promotion/advertising are against policy. The only reliable source provided by Tinton5 is the U.S. Attorneys Eastern District of California reporting on the import of shoes from China under fake invoices to evade millions of $$ of US import taxes, but the mention is missing in the article.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Everything I can find is either a trivial notice or a press release--conveniently, the press releases are so marked, there's not even an advertorial pseudo-news item. DGG (
talk )
23:02, 25 September 2017 (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.