Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Tigre Clothing (2nd nomination)

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Le Tigre Clothing

Le Tigre Clothing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article has been around for a while and has had 1 AFD before. I have tried with no luck to find reliable sources to support the article. It seems easily notable as we have all heard of the brand, but without sources to support the facts it is hard to keep this. The only source I found was this which mentions that Kenneth Cole owns the rights to the shoe line (towards the bottom of the page). Unfortunately it fails to meet WP:CORP. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The article states that "Le Tigre was featured on the cover of Women's Wear Daily on August 17, 2006." Also see http://www.wwd.com/search/article/118939?query=Tigre The full article is not available for free, but the preview provides enough information. --Eastmain (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole article reeks of WP:OR. The only thing we can verify is that Kenneth Cole now owns the trademark. Seems like that should be in the Kenneth Cole article. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Junk article on a keep topic: The label is notable. The company is substantial. The clothing line is common. The article is wretched in the extreme. This requires a complete rewrite to be sustainable, but the topic is ok. Will anyone volunteer to research and actually write the real article? If not, it's better to delete than carry this. If so, do. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Hold that tiger! The article needs work, but that it needs work is not a good reason to nuke it. (Yes, it is a reason, but not a good reason. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, even a casual glance at Google News Archive shows plenty of sources. Eastmain's WP:HEY efforts have already passed the bar for WP:CORP. --Dhartung | Talk 17:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dhartung that is what we needed. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Close per nom Sources are available. Happily withdraw nom. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and speedy close. I'm surprised to see this once nominated, twice? coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:52, 21 May 2008 (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.