- 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. Secret account 19:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Errorwear
- Errorwear ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This survived an AFD nine years ago, but looking at the "Keep, I've heard of it" votes just serves to show how much Wikipedia's standards have improved since then. Totally unsourced, and even the company's own "In the media" page doesn't have anything remotely resembling a reliable source. (Google brings up lots of hits, but nothing apparently resembling a source of any kind.) I personally feel that even if it were sourced, as it stands it would be deletable as spam – and after nine years it's probably reasonable to assume nobody has an interest in improving it – but in light of the previous AFD keep, don't think it's appropriate for a speedy tag. Mogism ( talk) 19:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. To repeat the good points that were made: nothing much out there, so not notable; even the article seems to say there's not much out there; the company web site doesn't provide any good links (w/respect to Wikipedia requirements). -- Larry/Traveling_Man ( talk) 19:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: VfD voting was surely a ratf***, back in the day; it was a pure headcount, and no one needed to give reasons. Meanwhile, these rotting debris of NN subjects clog up the aether. Nha Trang 20:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
The result was delete. Secret account 19:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Errorwear
- Errorwear ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This survived an AFD nine years ago, but looking at the "Keep, I've heard of it" votes just serves to show how much Wikipedia's standards have improved since then. Totally unsourced, and even the company's own "In the media" page doesn't have anything remotely resembling a reliable source. (Google brings up lots of hits, but nothing apparently resembling a source of any kind.) I personally feel that even if it were sourced, as it stands it would be deletable as spam – and after nine years it's probably reasonable to assume nobody has an interest in improving it – but in light of the previous AFD keep, don't think it's appropriate for a speedy tag. Mogism ( talk) 19:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. To repeat the good points that were made: nothing much out there, so not notable; even the article seems to say there's not much out there; the company web site doesn't provide any good links (w/respect to Wikipedia requirements). -- Larry/Traveling_Man ( talk) 19:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: VfD voting was surely a ratf***, back in the day; it was a pure headcount, and no one needed to give reasons. Meanwhile, these rotting debris of NN subjects clog up the aether. Nha Trang 20:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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.