Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drunknmunky

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 delete. Daniel (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drunknmunky

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A poorly sourced article on a company that does not appear to pass WP:NCORP. My particular concern is that there is no coverage that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH, which states Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements. Sources cited in the article do not provide the level of analysis required for this company and a quick WP:BEFORE search yields little better. Clear WP:COI/WP:UPE involvement as well as 'random IPs' are continually removing deletion tags. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My WP:BEFORE did not show any results except routine pr-announcements and hip hop marketing material which does not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH at all. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — per G11, for using Wikipedia for blatant promotional purposes. Celestina007 (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per A7, the website for the "company" also has no content, so I think its a possible WP:HOAX Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drunknmunky is definitely a real brand, as I have some of their clothes. I'm actually surprised by the lack of coverage that they get as they were quite trendy for about one or two years. They used to be sold in Republic. Still not notable enough for an article, though. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone, I was referring to the website that was on the page at the time of my comment.... and basing it purely off that and me trying to determine the image on the page copyright status. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 02:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. That 'own work' tag is certainly dubious at best. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 11 March 2021 (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.