Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bearpaw (footwear) (2nd nomination)

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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bearpaw (footwear)[edit]

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

No enduring notability. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia is not a company listing site or the Yellow Pages. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:NOTDIR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable brand of footwear, with various sources found. [1], [2], opening of their first store: [3], interview with founder: [4], the founder in hot water: "Sacramento Area Businessman Charged With Evading $5.6M In Customs Duties On Footwear Imported From China" Tinton5 (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually this satisfies GNG pretty nicely. Tinton5 shows there's significant coverage in reliable independent sources. That's enough in this case to keep the article. Also, nom's rationale that the notibility is not enduring seems to be just made up. Enduring notability is not a thing on WP. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is not a single claim in that article that the brand or the company is anything special. The article is just a blatant company listing. In its current cast, no arguments for 'keep' can possibly be in line with notability guidelines, and promotion/advertising are against policy. The only reliable source provided by Tinton5 is the U.S. Attorneys Eastern District of California reporting on the import of shoes from China under fake invoices to evade millions of $$ of US import taxes, but the mention is missing in the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely promotional, fails WP:SPIP, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Reference listed by Tinton5 fail the criteria for establishing notability as follows: this footwearnews.com article fails WP:ORGIND as it is based substantially on this PR from the company, same quotes too, and is therefore also a PRIMARY source with no independent opinion/analysis. This prweb reference is a Press Release and fails WP:ORGIND as it is not an independent secondary source. This bizjournals.com article also fails WP:ORGIND as it is also based on a company announcement and is also therefore is not intellectually independent and fails the criteria for establishing notability. The interview in footwearplusmagazine.com fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as it is entirely based on an interview/quotes from the CEO with no independent opinion/analysis and is also therefore a PRIMARY source. Finally, the article on fraud only mentions this company in passing. If the topic of this article was the CEO, this would arguably help to establish his notability. Notability is not inherited. This article is only a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything I can find is either a trivial notice or a press release--conveniently, the press releases are so marked, there's not even an advertorial pseudo-news item. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although quite surprising given they are behind Ugg boots, I too conclude that there's not enough here (or out there) to demonstrate notability. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an directory listing on an unremarkable brand; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 30 September 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.