- 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. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Rodarte
- Rodarte ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
advertising The Banner talk 20:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep (but maybe WP:BLOWITUP). Advertising? Horribly so, and those responsible should receive 1000 lashes with a trout. But the brand itself is notable, I think, having been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are some ridiculous claims in the article, like the suggestion that "x celebrity is a fan of the brand" because she happened to wear one of the company's dresses to an award ceremony once. Total rubbish. Stalwart 111 23:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. It seems to me that what is listed on this page is a list or series of events/ records that make up a brand's history. If people use Wikipedia as a source and timeline for events/people/places, and this reads just like every entry I read about a film's trajectory or even the timeline of a tech company. Aside from the ridiculous quote listed above, I don't see much else that is not factual information based in events and perhaps timeline highlights for the brand itself.? user: ParisTexas1980 — Preceding undated comment added 02:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep If the tone seems too promotional then that's addressed by ordinary editing not deletion. Please see WP:BEFORE. Andrew ( talk) 08:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- I know that the brand is notable, but this article is just an advertisement. You can not keep up the rule that advertising is not allowed on Wikipedia when you do not apply WP:TNT on this article. The Banner talk 08:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- WP:TNT is neither policy nor a guideline. It is advocacy of violence which is inappropriate here. Our actual editing policy is WP:PRESERVE. Andrew ( talk) 22:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- In what way does Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over advocate violence? It suggests that sometimes articles about notable subjects are created by editors less familiar with our manuals of style and that sometimes there would be more effort involved in fixing those articles than in starting over again. It doesn't advocate beating those editors to death with a rock. In fact in my experience, that process can be a great learning opportunity for new editors who saw a need (for a new article) but didn't quite know how to fill that gap. Stalwart 111 23:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Major brand with plenty of reliable sources. Don't think it's so bad as to merit deletion for a clean-slate rewrite -- current references etc. could be useful to future editors. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 20:45, 21 May 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Rodarte
- Rodarte ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
advertising The Banner talk 20:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep (but maybe WP:BLOWITUP). Advertising? Horribly so, and those responsible should receive 1000 lashes with a trout. But the brand itself is notable, I think, having been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are some ridiculous claims in the article, like the suggestion that "x celebrity is a fan of the brand" because she happened to wear one of the company's dresses to an award ceremony once. Total rubbish. Stalwart 111 23:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. It seems to me that what is listed on this page is a list or series of events/ records that make up a brand's history. If people use Wikipedia as a source and timeline for events/people/places, and this reads just like every entry I read about a film's trajectory or even the timeline of a tech company. Aside from the ridiculous quote listed above, I don't see much else that is not factual information based in events and perhaps timeline highlights for the brand itself.? user: ParisTexas1980 — Preceding undated comment added 02:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep If the tone seems too promotional then that's addressed by ordinary editing not deletion. Please see WP:BEFORE. Andrew ( talk) 08:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- I know that the brand is notable, but this article is just an advertisement. You can not keep up the rule that advertising is not allowed on Wikipedia when you do not apply WP:TNT on this article. The Banner talk 08:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- WP:TNT is neither policy nor a guideline. It is advocacy of violence which is inappropriate here. Our actual editing policy is WP:PRESERVE. Andrew ( talk) 22:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- In what way does Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over advocate violence? It suggests that sometimes articles about notable subjects are created by editors less familiar with our manuals of style and that sometimes there would be more effort involved in fixing those articles than in starting over again. It doesn't advocate beating those editors to death with a rock. In fact in my experience, that process can be a great learning opportunity for new editors who saw a need (for a new article) but didn't quite know how to fill that gap. Stalwart 111 23:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Major brand with plenty of reliable sources. Don't think it's so bad as to merit deletion for a clean-slate rewrite -- current references etc. could be useful to future editors. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 20:45, 21 May 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.