Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden fox footwear


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Golden fox footwear

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparent promotional page. Literally all sources are bad, a basic WP:BEFORE turned up no evidence of RS coverage of the company. Created by SPA who makes many promotional edits concerning footwear. David Gerard (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't find any reliable secondary sources discussing the company or their products. And Golden Fox Footwear was deleted for lack of significance in August, with the deleting admin unable to find any sources, either. --bonadea contributions talk 05:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Which was created by ... the same SPA! As far as I can tell they have zero non-promotional edits - David Gerard (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as trivial and unconvincing information followed by also trivial and unconvincing information, there are some thin claims of significance but it's still so thin, there seriously cannot be any actual substance, there's no inherited notability, as always, from anyone or anything. SwisterTwister   talk  06:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete- blatantly promotional page based on dubious, promotional sources. Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Articles like this are a good evidence why WP:CSD G4 should be extended to apply to PRODded spam. Reyk  YO!  07:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete' -- obvious spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2016 (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.