Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markhor (brand)

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Markhor (brand)

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

cited sources are not notable enuogh. fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Saqib (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a well written stub which has adequate citations for its size. Daylen (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the cited sources are not credible/reliable. --Saqib (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having actually looked through the sources, I don't see a problem. Yes, a couple of them aren't ideal such as the Kickstarter page, but that is backed up by another source to support rather than it being the sole source. There are articles about the company, the founding process, their business practices. It looks fine to me. I also quickly scanned through Google News and other results, and I'm still not worried. Mabalu (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:PROMO page for an unremarkable private company. Coverage is routine and what's to be expected on a company actively promoting itself. This content can just as effectively be housed on the company's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG. more promo puff. no clear assertion of significance. Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've seen their advertising elsewhere. They do it better where it belongs--they don't need it here. The WSJ article is an acceptable source,but nothing else here is. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 21 June 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.