Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reef (company)

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 consensus to keep. — Athaenara ✉ 00:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reef (company)

Product or company has no significant coverage in secondary sources. Only passing mention of brand in some newspapers. Fails WP:N. Also written like an advertisement. Assize (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, and no evidence of notability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:I'MWEARINGTHESERIGHTNOW. Ok, ok... keep per being a well-known national brand with a good amount of reliable sources (like this one, for example). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the lovely women they always have in their booths at trade shows. Seriously, they're a top brand in the footwear industry. More sources at Transworld Business and The Kite Boarder and The Mercury News. Many more sources as long as you google for Reef with the name of one of the founders. --Millbrooky (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article whose only source is the company's web site is unnotable. Since when is a web site with lovely (model) men and women a reason to keep this article? The claims about the company's founders is not even sourced or verifiable. Artene50 (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did you even bother searching for references before voting Delete? Did you even bother reading my Keep vote with supporting refs? Just in case, I added a few refs into the article. --Millbrooky (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you had the references, you should have placed them in the heart of the article itself to improve it. Nobody bothered to do this--until you came along after I voted. I certainly inspected the article itself...and saw only the company's web site cited as a source. PS: The Wikipedia tag about its this company's notability is still on the article itself...which tells me others may share my concerns about its notability. However, I've removed the unreferenced tag due to your good reliable sources. Regards, Artene50 (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable per a quick perusal of the web. Please take the time to understand the notability guidelines and AfD process before attempting to delete articles for lack of sources (which is not a deletion criterion). Wikidemo (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please see point 9 of WP:DEL. The failure to find reliable sources for at least a year is a ground for deletion. Putting that aside, the references so far only touch incidentally on the sandals and are more directly relevant to the founders of the company, and so this could only be called a weak keep at best. Assize (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage in reliable sources here to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 21:07, 30 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.