- 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. Owen× ☎ 19:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
VonZipper
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- VonZipper ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It appears to be a non-notable eyewear company with no significant coverage in reliable sources. The currently 2 cited sources are either passing mentions, or press releases. Therefore, it fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH Konhume ( talk) 19:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Best I can find are PR-ish product reviews, written by the editors of whatever news outlet it is... [1] this is the best that came up, and it's promotional. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No reliable secondary coverage of the brand. Contributor892z ( talk) 02:22, 7 June 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 19:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
VonZipper
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- VonZipper ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It appears to be a non-notable eyewear company with no significant coverage in reliable sources. The currently 2 cited sources are either passing mentions, or press releases. Therefore, it fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH Konhume ( talk) 19:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Best I can find are PR-ish product reviews, written by the editors of whatever news outlet it is... [1] this is the best that came up, and it's promotional. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No reliable secondary coverage of the brand. Contributor892z ( talk) 02:22, 7 June 2024 (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.