This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Hello
Northamerica1000 -- This article has lain about unreferenced for years. To deserve inclusion in WP it needs to demonstrate notability by secondary sources. Perhaps there is a reason why no one has added anything. Passing references like this
[1] don't count. If we are going to reject articles about Silicon Valley startups and other small businesses, the same standards need to apply to articles that have been here since 2006. Fair is fair.
I am tempted just to tag it AfD, so we get some more eyeballs on it. What do you think?
Rhadow (
talk)
12:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Hello
North America -- From the
guideline: Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet (though in most cases it probably would improve the article to add them).
So it's a judgement call. If an editor reasonably believes there is a good article out there, the vote would be to keep the article. In this case, and thousands like it, five years have passed and no article turned up. Notice that the guidelines says have been published, so there is no reason to wait another five years.
Rhadow (
talk)
13:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)reply