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.
I don't really think this article is promotional. The available coverage is mostly contained to YouTube entertainment sites such as Tubefilter and Dankanator, but there is one sigcov article on
Uproxx[1]. Definitely on the weaker end of WP:GNG. – Thjarkur(talk)19:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Whilst there's no doubt the article could be improved with further citations, I agree that the article does not come across as promotional. Whilst the references are mostly contained to YouTube entertainment sites, these sites are also used for a plethora of YouTube related articles additionally it is supported by wider News sites. It's agreeable that the page is lacking in breadth, as I mentioned on the talk page. But I don't believe this means the page is worth deleting, especially when the article is already marked as a stub. The available references DO support that the company has a suitable amount of notoriety separate to that of H3H3, and so it makes sense to allow other users to build upon these foundations. The user who originally put the page up for speedy deletion was, quite frankly, being pedantic and felt like an attempt to prevent the page being expanded upon. User:Steel Centurion(talk) 13:36, 17 November 2020 (GMT)
Note the previous (and ad hominem) comment was from the page's creator. Nominated for speedy, tags removed by now-indeffed editor, restored by admin. A second editor then made a speedy nomination (I was A7, they went G11) before this AfD. A YouTuber's clothing brand, sold direct or via a single retailer. This is notability? Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
09:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Very mild keep Needs links to newspapers of note or others, not just yahoo~ style or blog-type websites. Would seem to be an established brand but should really be talked about in the New York Times or such to be notable here.
Oaktree b (
talk)
16:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Note: I am the page's creator - To reiterate, while the article does include these Yahoo! type references, these are intended to open up the article and give it a bit more breadth. Speaking somewhat directly to
User: Alexandermcnabb, is
Uproxx or the Business Insider not considered a valid source? And if Tubefilter is not considered a valid source I'd like to question why it is valid in the contexts of other YouTube-based articles such as
PewDiePie. I also believe that a 'single retailer', when not owned by the company themselves, does not diminish it's notability and fails to recognise the way many popular streetwear brands operate in the modern day i.e Supreme or Rip n Dip. Again, I simply believe it's worth keeping as a stub article as more references will undoubtedly become available as time goes on. Despite my years on this platform I am still a somewhat inexperienced user and so I do appreciate the feedback on this whatever the outcome for the article, thanks -
Steel Centurion (
talk)
06:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Just a note - the above editor is a now-blocked sockpuppet (not sure if that matters here or not). Regardless of that, a
vote without explanation or reason isn't the most helpful. -
Whisperjanes (
talk)
05:23, 2 December 2020 (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.