Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hey Dude (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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dude (company)[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)

The sources used are all from a UK retailer. After a WP:BEFORE search, I believe there is no indecent and reliable coverage to suggest that this company is notable. WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY are not met. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have since added additional sources. Please note the original sources provided are in fact from the official company website as opposed to a retailer. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. The difference is minimal: both are non-independent sources because they have an interest in promoting the subject. About the additional sources: it's not the product but the company that needs to be covered. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources provided focusing more on the company. Please review. Thanks. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Motley Fool and LinkedIn? These are a far cry from reliable sources. The closest thing to a solid source is the promotional piece by Men's Journal. Please review WP:Rs and WP:IS before adding more sources to the article. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-01 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on what I could find, their loafers are popular ("#1 loafer on Amazon" says Yahoo Sports), but sources are so spotty; either passing mentions or, since this is a store selling products, just advertising the shoe (articles with affiliate links). Nothing about the company; even the company's own "about" page says a lot without saying anything about concrete facts about its own history! ~EdGl talk 19:16, 26 January 2021 (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.