Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bettanin & Venturi


 * 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.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 02:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Bettanin & Venturi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No significant coverage in reliable sources. RacconishTk 05:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete For me is an advertisment, the user that started the article has only 2 edit in wikipedia, all his entry are on article Bettanin & Venturi.User:Lucifero4
 * Keep he basis of the two RSs I just added. I wonder why the nom didn't look. even more than I wonder why the contributor didn't bother. Contributors are unfortunately frequently careless about such things, but their errors can be corrected.  DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. One source simply says Mr X, who has 550 shoes, bought one "very pretty" pair from Bettanin & Venturi. Not sourcing the claim of "exclusive luxury men's shoes". The other source, a passing mention, adds "a luxury shoemaker known for flashy leathers, custom-dyes belts to your multicolored wishes". Not referencing the claims of "refined coloring of leather" (Quite the opposite, actually) nor "line of accessories with similar finish of shoes" (Which finish?). Still not a significant coverage as defined by WP:GNG: "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." RacconishTk 05:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio  Let's talk about it! 10:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * keep&mdash;the motives of the creator of the article aren't relevant to this discussion. i agree that a good faith case could be made for the non-notability of this topic, but i find myself on the keep side of things, mostly because (a) the shoes are mentioned in a number of novels, (b) if i had been reading those novels before having seen this afd, i would have not known anything about the shoes and would have turned immediately to wikipedia rather than google for information, and (c) i would have found the article useful in that case, even in its pre-DGG state, even more so by now.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Notable in popular culture and gets significant coverage in reliable sources. Rednevog (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.