Talk:David and Goliath (clothing)

~Wikipedia is not for advertising stores.

I agree that the average human being would consider "David and Goliath" to refer to the Biblical legend and not a generally unknown clothing store. -Naif 04:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is why the article has a prominent disambiguation link to the biblical legend. Ambi 04:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Think you're missing the point. "David and Goliath" as is commonly used in the English language refers to the Biblical legend.  The clothing store should be a disambiguation link in the main article. - Naif 05:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily object to this logic (I'd always wondered why the legend was at Goliath anyway), but I've never seen the point of having an ugly disambiguation header at the top of a main article just so another page could redirect rather than link to it. Ambi 05:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

''Note this is not "Verifiable" by the policy of Wikipedia's founders. For something to be a contribution to Wikipedia it must be verifiable by many sources. What I'm sayin is that David and Goliath is bound to be around longer than a unknown clothing chain, thus "David and Goliath" the clothing chain is a relic or a fad. It will not be a permanent residence of Wikipedia. That's the beatuy of wikipedia, its as consistent people's memories and preferences will let it be. Are you prepared for the eternal edits? Biblical memory is a lot stronger than present day fads. So nevermind the infringement, I'm satisfied the reference to the clothing line will disappear over time. Its just this companies dumb luck that they should pick such am ambigious reference. If you wish to have your logo remembered, pick a unique name. The lack of uniqueness is a sign of just how much a fad the line is.''


 * ...which has nothing whatsoever to do with verifiability. Nice try, but no cigar. Ambi 09:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion
This company, is Worldwidely Unfamous and Obscure, it's unimportant. It's not Gucci or something! The article sounds as a commercial!


 * Um, do some research first. I live on the other side of the world, and I know multiple people who own David and Goliath stuff (heck, I had one of their posters for a while). Rebecca 08:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rebecca. This is a perhaps not famous company but it is known to some people and should therefore exist. Just because you don't know them, it doesn’t mean that it's like that for everybody. Folkmann 12:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirection to Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them
Yepper, we've had the shirts here. But there isn't even a hint in the article that there is any non-trivial publications covering them other than about the shirt. "Harm in redirect is what?" I ask, hat in hand. - brenneman  00:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * They're a notable company - they have well-known products sold in stores around the world. We have many brands that are much more well known than the companies that operate them, but I've never seen a case where this means we kill the article on the company. Rebecca 00:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll check back in a monoth or two to see if citations have been provided to support these claims, but it seems highly unlikely to me that there is a need to have two articles: One for the notorius shirt, one for the other-wise unnotable company. - brenneman  01:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Todd Goldman
I support the merge. GarryKosmos 04:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)