Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ipa-Nima


 * 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. Nakon 00:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Ipa-Nima

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page that has been long tagged for notability. As well as a advertisement-the only ref was for the site which is a dead link now. Wgolf (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – The dead link was the old site. It was in the Wayback Machine. This is the about page, which seems to have been the source for most of the text in earlier versions. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - A quick google search does reveal numerous references from international media to "Ipa-Nima", including Time Magazine, Usa Today , Les Echos (French) , South China Morning Post , to cite a few. Mentioned in Who's who in fashion and some other books as well. Lack of notability seems like a stretch, the article just needs some work. (Imho what happened is that the "anti-advertising" brigade reduced the formerly more comprehensive and more useful article to just one sentence, thereby preparing it for deletionists to jump on. Also smells of wikipedia bias: if the average wikipedia user was an asian female with an interest in fashion, and not a white western male with an interest in technology and war, the article would be more comprehensive by now. Just my five cents.) ReidarM (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculous account of what happened based entirely on a groundless assumption of bad faith. When I tagged the article as an advertisement is was blatantly promotional in both its tone and its content.  When I tagged it with needing independent sources to establish notability, it had no independent sources that established notability.  You have no reason to assume some nefarious intent.  Later, when another editor removed the promotional content, much of which was plagiarized from the subject's own website, that was an absolutely appropriate thing to do according to Wikipedia policy.  You should apologize to User:Epeefleche for accusing him of intending to merely "prepare it for deletionists", especially considering that no one nominated it for deletion for more than three years afterwards.  Edgeweyes (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Deletion of material that does not comport with wp:v is not "preparing it for deletion"; nor is the addition of non-RS-supported material preparing it for non-deletion. Two separate issues. Articles are assessed at AfD based on what sources exist, not based on what unsourced-text appears in the article. Epeefleche (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * one of the deleted sentences was "Ipa-Nima is regularly featured in fashion magazines such as Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Elle, Marie Claire, Star Style, Latina, InStyle, Personality, Linda, Glamour, Upscale, Glow, and Neo". While not a perfect citation, that sentence certainly gave a few clues to existing sources. ReidarM (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 12:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 12:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 12:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 08:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed. Sources identified above are adequate to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources given above. Pinging who first tagged this for notability. Boleyn (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, are you satisfied that the new refs show it meets notability and feel you could withdraw the nomination or are you still concerned? Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 7 April 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.