Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alphadi

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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alphadi

Alphadi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Same as Xuly Bet. Up for speedy delete, tag removed. A non-notable fashion brand. I decided to nominate them seperately, because this article has just a bit more content than the one above, and also, I don't know how similar they are, so I don't want to put them in the same argument. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 07:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability; only links are to the subject's own website. No evidence of coverage by third-party sources. Walton monarchist89 09:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• This brand is a notable brand however all third-party sources are in French. Can it rather be moved to a French section where other French-speaking users can update? --Nappywun 17:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Well there's always the French Wikipedia! If there are no sources in English, it's very hard to write an article on. After all, if we can't read any third-party sources about it, how can we be sure of its notability? The only thing that having no sources in English is that it isn't very notable, but that is not neccessarily the case. It seems that it's the same with Xuly Bet. It's all very big in France, but not great over here. We'll have to see what happens with this one then. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 18:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Here is a good reference for Alphadi:http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/label_France/55/gb/05.html. He is most famous African designer in France.-MsHyde 05:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not enough references shown Fotografico 04:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 11:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Find sources: books, news, scholar Addhoc 11:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per above searches. Addhoc 11:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand/cleanup per above search results. Tag article for expansion and add these search results to the talk page. -- Black Falcon 18:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Like many new articles just needs to be filled in with more reliable and insightful information. --Ozgod 23:47, 14 February 2007 (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.