Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LRG clothing
- 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 (keep)—the AfD is split evenly on a borderline topic, and a user has expressed a serious interest in researching the subject. The article should be re-nominated at a later date if sources are not included. — Deckiller 16:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This non-notable clothing line gets only 713 unique hits on Google, and a full two-thirds of those are spam, blogs, and spamblogs. Only reference is their own website, and claims of celebrity endorsements are unverified. wikipediatrix 02:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC) I actually see LRG stuff in department stores all the time. Jmm6f488 04:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per [1] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: found notable sources here, here, and maybe here. Sidatio 04:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when are WP:GHITS and poor writing deletion criteria anyway? It doesn't look like much now, sure, but there's enough out there to write a proper article. Sidatio 04:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That they did some design work for T-Mobile is encouraging, but still not sure that satisfies WP:CORP. wikipediatrix 05:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that particular version of the Sidekick was named after their company bears a little weight, I'm sure. There are also the other notable sources, plus their involvement in lawsuits in New Jersey [2] and Nevada [3], and more notable news articles here and here, where we can confirm they were (and apparently still are, from what I can tell) one of the clothing sponsors for Kanye West. Sidatio 05:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does a case filed by them give them notability? Where is the significant coverage in the fourth link? Corpx 05:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fourth link helps to justify a claim for a celebrity endorsement, it seems. As far as the court links, it's hard to say without seeing the full document, but it's possible there's something there. Anyway, Richard's Google Archives link turns up enough notable articles - I think I found some of those as well. What else is needed to suit WP:CORP? Is there a number of secondary sources they need? It looks fine to me, source-wise. Sidatio 05:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Celebrity endorsement do not grant notability. There are lots of celebs who do ads for local businesses, but that does not grant notability to the businesses Corpx 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm well aware of that. I was talking about one of the nominating criteria - the nominator was concerned about being unable to verify celebrity endorsements. That's all. :-) Sidatio 05:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Celebrity endorsement do not grant notability. There are lots of celebs who do ads for local businesses, but that does not grant notability to the businesses Corpx 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fourth link helps to justify a claim for a celebrity endorsement, it seems. As far as the court links, it's hard to say without seeing the full document, but it's possible there's something there. Anyway, Richard's Google Archives link turns up enough notable articles - I think I found some of those as well. What else is needed to suit WP:CORP? Is there a number of secondary sources they need? It looks fine to me, source-wise. Sidatio 05:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does a case filed by them give them notability? Where is the significant coverage in the fourth link? Corpx 05:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that particular version of the Sidekick was named after their company bears a little weight, I'm sure. There are also the other notable sources, plus their involvement in lawsuits in New Jersey [2] and Nevada [3], and more notable news articles here and here, where we can confirm they were (and apparently still are, from what I can tell) one of the clothing sponsors for Kanye West. Sidatio 05:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not still think they are notable.Company founded only in 1999 does not meet WP:CORP. Harlowraman 00:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, are there specific sources rather than trivial mentions? Robert Granot 09:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Okay, let's address a few of the issues raised here:
- We do, indeed, have sources. Again, we have this from WWD, which deals with the women's fashion industry. We also have this writeup from DNR, which is a men's fashion magazine. If you're concerned about that publication's notability, here's some background on it. Finally, this list of articles found on Google by Richard Arthur Norton turns up a whole host of articles. Yes, they have to be sifted to find viable sources, but the fact remains that they're there if anyone would just take the time to do some research.
- Simply being founded in 1999 isn't enough to kill notability from what I can see in WP:CORP. If I'm wrong, point it out to me and I'll be happy to correct myself. Furthermore, the sources provided meet WP:CORP standards. And I quote:
| “ | A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable. | ” |
The sources provided are from secondary, reliable sources, are featured exclusively in at least two of the aforementioned articles (and quite probably more once proper research has been undertaken), and since we have established attributable, secondary sources, we can use primary sources to bolster the content if need be. In sum, the subject of the article passes WP:CORP with flying colors. Again, if I'm wrong, present your argument.
- To end, I feel it prudent to remind everyone of The Heymann Standard. Except this time, I'm going to put my money where my considerably large mouth is and do the work myself. TO THE REVIEWING ADMINISTRATOR: I ask that you give me 3 days to complete this work.
That's all I've got for now. If anyone is willing to address the issues I've raised, feel free. Sidatio 16:06, 12 August 2007 (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.
