Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DSTLD


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

DSTLD

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Essentially advertising. The contributor's edit history indicates possible coi for this and other articles  DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 18:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep There is a fair amount of coverage on various women's magazines that includes some analysis around the new material made from Eucalyptus they are using for their Jeans, instead of cotton. I think it probably sufficient to satisfy WP:THREE.   scope_creep Talk  13:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 02:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The coverage mentioned above sems to be essentially promotion for their jeans, placed by their PR rep in the appropriate magazines. Getting such articles is what PR people do.  DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fundamentally based on promotional pieces, with no real independent notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The article appears to be well-referenced and supported by independent and reliable sources. It also seems factual to me - I don't detect an overly promotional tone.--Concertmusic (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2020 (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.