Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Jeans Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black Jeans Company

  • Delete Clothing company advertisement. A search for "Black Jeans Company" returns a grand total of 4 hits on Google. Doesn't seem that notable to me. Initial vote comes from article creator (according to IP address). --PhilipO 02:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Basic Information Site for public corporation. Keep article. -- LavonS (Unsigned comment by 70.178.224.58 (talk · contribs))

*Keep. Totally NPOV entry for a notable company. - Lucky 6.9 23:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - company apears notable -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to delete. -- Francs2000 | Talk 22:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unknown clothing company. --nixie 00:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, reading the article it does seem notable. However, there is no way to explain away the only four google hits (two of which are at blackjeansco.com).--Pharos 01:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Credible Clothing company, regardless of notoriety. --- Misty A. (Unsigned comment by 70.240.84.162 (talk · contribs)) (Unsigned comment altered by 144.96.120.178 (talk · contribs))

Keep. Notable jean company.--A. Presridge (Unsigned comment by 144.96.120.150 (talk · contribs)) (Unsigned comment altered by 144.96.120.178 (talk · contribs))

Keep-Simply informative with little or no advertising.-- AnitaV (Unsigned comment by 144.96.120.178 (talk · contribs))

  • No Google presence + "Three new mens designs, and the newly created womens line (available in four styles)are currently in the final stages of production" (i.e., "we have yet to sell anything") + puppets = Delete. Dcarrano 02:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. After viewing the website, it seems highly unlikely that the company has yet to sell anything. There is even a list of stores that currently carries the jean.--JoshD (Unsigned comment by 70.178.232.8 (talk · contribs))

  • Mr. Black/Mr. Black's friend, please stop it; you're not fooling anyone.--Pharos 02:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. None of the 8 hits for "black jeans" "Daniel Black" are relevant, and adding the middle initial gets zero hits. And their products are only available in 11 retail locations across the US? Also much of the article is unverifiable. (And socks are never a good sign.)Niteowlneils 02:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not-notable, largely unverifiable and I hate meatpuppets and sockpuppets always. -Splash 02:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Niteowlneils and Splash. Quale 04:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable brand. JamesBurns 09:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and Darn those socks! Radiant_>|< 09:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to delete as an attempt, however subtle, at free advertising. Google comes back virtually nil, the website says virtually nothing and the sockpuppets are virtually coming out of the woodwork. The ever-virtual Lucky 6.9 16:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity page, not a notable company. --Vizcarra 22:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, sock puppets go to Wiki-Hell. -- BD2412 talk 22:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- Although these unwarranted allegations of puppets is not appreciated, it is understandable considering this is my first original contribution. Just for the greater good of the conversation, the 144.96.120.178 is representative of the local Stephen F. Austin University network. So the entire student body could contribute to the discussion, and it would appear as a single person.--LavonS (User 70.178.224.58 (talk · contribs))
    • But unregistered users don't get to take part in these discussions anyway. You are welcome to sign up for a username however if your only edits with that user name are to take part in a vfd discussion some more established editors on Wikipedia frown upon that. My advice would be to allow the vote go the way the established community want it to go for the moment, then when you've had some practice editing Wikipedia articles and contributing to the community at large, then come back and revisit the subject. -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:35, 14 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.