Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threeasfour

Threeasfour are immoral people. Don't support them. Adi, a member of the trio is a child-abuser now celebrity. It's time we ask people to be more open about their past. This people are dancing with pedophiles. I will not sit back and let this happen folx. How about you?

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 no consensus. Just want to point out that I (and other admins) tend to ignore comments that something is "clearly (not) notable" (delete as applicable) - try to indicate why this is your opinion - it is unlikely to be obvious to me what your reasoning is Fritzpoll (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threeasfour[edit]

And AsFOUR, and assorted redirects linked to/from the articles and their talk pages, and File:Threeasfour logo.gif. Advertisement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a section on why the designers are notable, "Museums and Recognition", with numerous references. manas 12:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manas17 (talk • contribs)
Keep - Not a fan of advertising articles, but this one's got WP:RS under google news. Some are from a fashion industry mag - Fashion Wire Daily - but others are from newspaper mentions, like the Toronto Star. I think that's barely enough. Shadowjams (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious advertising, as well as notability problems. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources seem trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having items used in exhibitions is NOT the same as being held in the permanent collection. Drawn Some (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They do have permanent collection in the Metropolitan Museum of Art -I have added references to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manas17 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as work is held in museums. It would be absurd to say that a painter whose work was held by or exhibited by the museums that have exhibited their work wasn't notable. It's not like it's minor galleries, these are the premier museums with collections that would include such work. I am surprised I never heard of them. Drawn Some (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find plenty of news paper sources, and one coffee table book. It is not extremely advertising-like either. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some more secondary sources focussing on them rather than mentioning them in passing would be good, but there's a lot of press coverage, even if the bulk of it is (unsurprisingly) in the fashion press. I found what looks like a more indepth article, but it isn't free:[1][2]. Here's some online fashion spreads:Style NY Mag Vogue WWD. Fences and windows (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rescue by Drawn Some. Granite thump (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2009 (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.