Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line the Label

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. (non-admin closure) HindWiki^Connect 23:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Line the Label

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

Non-notable clothing brand that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Has a claim to notability as some news outlets commented on Meghan Markle's wearing of a jacket from this brand, but next to no other coverage exists. I dont feel that this single instance of notability warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this lot. Just please try not to cite the Daily Mail when expanding it..... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no indication of any lasting significance - all coverage is a one time media blip re a single event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While the company has been very much in the news lately there are lots of articles online and offline in reliable ibdependent sources from prior years. here are a few. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
notability is not inherited. just because theer are sources that mention the brand, they're not really about the brand. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 07:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the sources in that search, or did you just do the politician's trick of answering the question you'd like to answer instead? The very first hit in that search is this piece from 2014 in the Vancouver Sun which is entirely about the company. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete per nom. maybe revisit in 6 mos? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 07:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PERNOM. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has been substantially transformed from this shoddy state when nominating to now this with multiple independent references. These reference are reliable and enough to meet GNG. Careful WP:BEFORE would have also prevented this. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG and CORPDEPTH, multiple non-trivial sources, predating the Meghan Markle coverage.Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this may be akin to the WP:BIO1E situation for the brand, but it looks like they are here to stay. This Vanity Fair article discusses the coat, which has been renamed as The Markle, and notes that Kate's engagement dress has its own Wikipedia page: Meghan Markle’s Fashion Choices Are a Boon to Her Adopted Canada: Many are noticing that the Markle Effect has a Canadian ripple. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no indication of any importance as a designer; al references but the Sun are celebrity gossip. Having designed one not very important jacket that happens to have been worn by someone very much in the news is not notability. The article specifically says it was that one triviality which made her famous.

I am also calling attention the decision of the author to lobby for the retention of the article on User talk:Jimbo Wales. It is, admittedly, a very effective way of attracting attention. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Telegraph and Reuters are not "celebrity gossip", that's specifically why I asked people not to cite the Daily Mail, which has pages and pages of Line the Label related gossipy waffle. The problem you've got is that a) the company appears to have been called "Line" or "Line Knitwear" in sources until very recently, so try and do a search on that b) the association with Meghan Markle has drowned out everything else, meaning you probably won't find it on page one of a Google News search unless you do some clever ninja-style querying. (I've dropped a few pre-2017 news sources into the article just now to illustrate that). Regards your last paragraph, the place to go is WP:ANI; here the discussion is buried and people are not likely to see it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can't say I like all this celebrity stuff but fair is fair: this label meets WP:SIGCOV. gidonb (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bt it fails NTABLOID--not everything notable is suitable for an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The canonical essay I like to cite is User:Uncle G/On notability - "Wikipedia is not a directory. It is an encyclopaedia. It is notability that stops Wikipedia from becoming a directory instead of an encyclopaedia." You can't both be right! Quick British newspapers 101 for those who can't be bothered to wade through the WP:RSN archives - BBC News = fine, but stuff by Laura Kuenssberg seems to be controversial for some reason, The Times = fine, Financial Times = fine, Daily Telegraph = fine, but watch out for the pro-Tory bias, Guardian = fine, but watch out for the pro-Labour bias, Independent = per the Guardian, The Sun = junk, Daily Star = junk, Daily Mirror = best avoided, Daily Express = avoid if you can, especially on anything Brexit-related, Daily Mail = you must be joking, Sunday Sport = are you on drugs? There are no tabloid newspapers cited in this article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All this is under my opinion but otherwise not related since based on different tests. gidonb (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my own statement above I have trimmed the exaggerated claims and focus on celebrities from the article. gidonb (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been expanded, includes a reasonable number of sources, and seems to be notable as well, as it meets the general criteria for notability. Keivan.f^Talk 02:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2017 (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.