Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kujo Yardwear


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Kujo Yardwear

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG pr WP:CORPDEPTH. While this might be notable one day it looks to be WP:TOOSOON. There are also WP:COI issues that make this appear possible WP:PROMO (page creator is listed in article as company CMO). Search reveals no coverage other than one cited article in local press. JamesG5 (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or Weak Keep : Delete as no significant coverage in reliable news media. Weak keep as a detailed article in The News-Herald (Ohio) seen. BetterSmile:D 09:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To allow further discussion of the sources added to the article after the last !vote
 * Strong delete Kickstarter is not a reliable source. A press release from an individual's alma mater is also not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep Company has citations from The News-Herald (Ohio), WOIO, and other recently added references. While Kickstarter is not an objective source, it exists as a historical artifact of the launch and response of a product. There is no citations (as suggested) from an alma mater (rather, the citation is from a municipally-distributed newspaper). Edit: Disclosure: co-founder of the company whose article is under review - comment meant to help clarify and further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigmichaelmartin (talk • contribs) 20:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * CommentThe "Keep" vote above is from the company founder, from a new account with yet more undeclared WP:COI. JamesG5 (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  14:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please focus discussion on the content, especially the sources added, and not on the creator.
 * Delete for failing to claim notability and sock puppetry shenanigans, not in itself criteria but a good red flag. --Ifnord (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  08:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- sources lack WP:CORPDEPTH; some are primary (Kickstarter) or local, as in "Local resident / our grad does well". Clearly WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing ++ 18:15, 15 August 2017 (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.