Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Jack Brand
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. John254 02:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bobby Jack Brand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Let's look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria.
- "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[1] except for the following:
- Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.[2] Material that is self-published, or published at the direction of the subject of the article, would be a primary source and falls under different policies.
- Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories." (excerpt ended)
- The sources I found are independent of the subject and come from reliable newspapers, the U.S. government, and press groups. The material used to prove notability does not come from the company, nor does it come from any of the suppliers. The proving notability sources are not directories and do not mention shopping hours and the like. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Let's look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria.
- Keep. The references demonstrate notability. I reformatted the newspaper references using {{cite news}} so as to include the date of publication and the name of the writer, where available. --Eastmain (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only secondary sources other than the Naples Daily News trivial mention that I can access are for a recall of sub-standard goods supplied to a notable store. Seems weird to accept that as grounds for notability whereas other similar suppliers who didn't have problems wouldn't necessarily be notable. Especially as the incident referenced isn't mentioned in the article. -Hunting dog (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I used the sources to prove that the brand was being sold nation-wide. And this isn't one "notable store" - this is a notable nationwide major department store chain. One news link says "The recalled pajama sets were sold at J.C. Penney stores nationwide from April through June for about $15." - It was not limited to any particular state. Also, regarding the "trivial" part the article described the brand as part of one trend among T-shirt slogans, so I do not feel that is trivial. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I found another press article that is completely about the brand, so I will post it to the article momentarily. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I used the sources to prove that the brand was being sold nation-wide. And this isn't one "notable store" - this is a notable nationwide major department store chain. One news link says "The recalled pajama sets were sold at J.C. Penney stores nationwide from April through June for about $15." - It was not limited to any particular state. Also, regarding the "trivial" part the article described the brand as part of one trend among T-shirt slogans, so I do not feel that is trivial. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only secondary sources other than the Naples Daily News trivial mention that I can access are for a recall of sub-standard goods supplied to a notable store. Seems weird to accept that as grounds for notability whereas other similar suppliers who didn't have problems wouldn't necessarily be notable. Especially as the incident referenced isn't mentioned in the article. -Hunting dog (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article is about a line of consumer products, and has received non-trivial coverage in a variety of independent sources. Being sold by a "monkey with an attitude" confers automatic notability, right? If not, it should. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2008 (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.