Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twinzz

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twinzz[edit]

[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)

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Lack of significant in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 10:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's ending today anyway, but procedural speedy delete per A7 - I'm not sure why the article wasn't just A7 tagged in the first instance, there doesn't seem to be any credible indication of notability within the article. Either way, after doing a BEFORE check, the only independent SIGCOV I can find is one article talking about a potential international expansion - which isn't sufficient for NCORP or GNG. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Naypta:, I did not A7 as the article had a credible claim of significance in that it asserted it is a widely (?, 370 locations) sold fashion brand. That being said, I was also certain that this article had a snowball chance in hell of surviving AfD given sourcing available. I am sure some admins would accept the A7 (as really this is a snowball delete), but a decline of the A7 would be within admin discretion here.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eostrix: Thanks for explaining your reasoning; that's fair. I disagree that that's a credible claim of significance, as that would indicate that any product that was sold would have one, but I can see how one might easily disagree. Of course, all these things are subjective! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:22, 6 July 2020 (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.