Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hemp Trading 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 keep. Per the sources found. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hemp Trading Company[edit]

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

My searches found nothing outstandingly good with this and this being the best results and, although the article has a few sources it could certainly be better. The time it has been here is likely not worth waiting longer for improvement and is probably best deleted (please feel free to draft & userfy). SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found two compelling sources in Google Books. Even though this is essentially a plug, it is from an unconnected third party, describes the brand's output, namechecks a few customers, and confirms it is a recognised and well-respected organic clothing brand. MUCH more compellingly, I found this book by Sandy Black. Google Search gives a taster of what Black has written about the company on page 62: "ALMOST BY accident, London company The Hemp Trading Company (THTC) started producing t-shirts made from knitted, a hundred per cent hemp, fabric. Founder Dru Lawson had been looking for a way to combine his environmental and...."

To place this in context: Sandy Black is an established academic and expert on dress and textiles, who has been doing this for a long time. Although we can't see all that she says, I trust her opinion if she thinks it is notable, as she is someone who knows her field. Mabalu (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment - I've pieced together some of the Black text from Google searches, enough to tell it contains quite substantial coverage of the firm. Also, there are six page hits for "THTC" in the same book although Google Search is only showing text from one page. I also found the following additional sources:

1 - nice info on the earliest origins of the company.
I found a web-archive of the New Consumer dead link cited in the article, and it's a nice piece.
Brief but nice piece from The Guardian, 2005. Another Guardian article here - despite being headlined as an "advertisement feature" for E.ON, it does hold a journalistic commentary on various brands and companies.
Coverage in The Ecologist - an interview, but snippet views indicate there is some third party commentary too. The Ecologist is a RS. Further investigation of the Ecologist online magazine pulls up [1] (reads a bit press-releasey, but I think the publication's choice to include it is worth noting).
Not really such perfect sources, but still nice: an interview on a respectec hip-hop news site [2]; an article (a blog post really, but still nicely written and part of an online magazine site which does appear to be trying to maintain standards) here; and another interview, albeit with substantial commentary from the interviewer in the beginning. Mabalu (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources now found above. AusLondonder (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2015 (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.