Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descendant of Thieves


 * 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Descendant of Thieves

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence that this meets Notability (organizations and companies). The two references are blog posts of no note. Derek Andrews (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I find no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, just typical brand publicity, and a few very brief namedrops  that don't support a finding of notability.  Note that this was previously created and then deleted by prod on 2 May 2015. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * KEEP . I see that you may have only noticed the two sources as blog posts since they are from smaller sites. However, the Bombfell article is an interview with the founders of the company and Bombfell itself is quite a large company within the Fashion space, with a large user base. According to Notability (organizations and companies) Notability can be established through at least one source in regional, national, or international media. Bombfell and Emploom can both be considered as international media. Please look into both those companies, and you will notice that there is Notability. Georgeplume2 (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Interviews with the subject, in which they're talking about themselves, do not demonstrate notability. They can be used for additional sourcing of facts after notability has been covered off by stronger sources, but they cannot be the notability in and of themselves. And media, for our purposes, is newspapers, magazines, books, TV or radio — not most blogs. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. None of the limited sourcing here is adequate to support a company's notability under WP:ORG, and per Arxiloxos there's not enough better sourcing out there. No prejudice against recreation in the future if things change, but right now this is at best a WP:TOOSOON case. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * '"Keep"'. There are additional sources that have been added that should be taken into account. Sourcing is of international reputation and with previous sources should support notability. Georgeplume2 (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that while you're allowed to comment as many times as you'd like in an AFD discussion, you're not allowed to "vote" more than once. Please do not preface any further comments with "keep", as it may be perceived as an attempt to distort the discussion. And for the record, you haven't actually added any new sources of any discernible "international reputation" since the first time I looked at the article — you've added one new source and it's still a blurb on a blog. Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as there's no better coverage. SwisterTwister   talk  07:52, 13 September 2015 (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.