Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGFG Fashion House (2nd nomination)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  12:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

LGFG Fashion House
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. References in the article are either based on announcements or are about the CEO (fails ORGIND) or are about the involvement in a bizarre lawsuit which doesn't by itself establish notability. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 12:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 12:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 12:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Good catch, user:HighKing! This article was already deleted after first nomination, but after that newly created by an anonym. This company fails WP:SIGCOV--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Agree with HighKing. Fails, ORGIND and CORPDEPTH because sources fail to establish independent coverage and/or significant coverage. Also, salt because Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, and salting ensures anon editors cannot create this article again. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is not enough coverage and that that can be found falls way short of WP:CORPDEPTH, as it did when this was up for deletion the previous time. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:44, 9 August 2021 (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.