Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libre Clothing


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Rcsprinter123    (natter)  @ 15:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Libre Clothing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

apparent advertising  DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see anything problematic with the article. There are many sources cited, covering a period of several years (passing GNG) and the tone doesn't seem terribly promotional. Mabalu (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I agree with DGG that it seems promotional. Not in the vein of "this is the greatest company/product ever!" but because it reads as product description, more than information about the company.  However, I don't think it reaches the level of blatant advertising, and is more in need of re-writing than deletion.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 15:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I think you kind of need to know what the products are in order to understand what the company is about. These aren't just ordinary clothes, but garments that serve a specific medical purpose, and have specific requirements, so some description is required. Mabalu (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No arguments there. Perhaps the reorganizing the article might help.  As it is, there's all this product information in the lede, followed by a short history section.  What if we made the lede much shorter, followed by the history section, and then a product section.  Thens we should remove such words as "comfortable", unless they have been described as such in an independent review.  The source where that claim comes from appears to parrot a press release.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 14:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I also agree that there are some minor issues with promotional language, but the main issue is that the company seems to be marginally notable, and doesn't need to be rewritten or anything to address those issues. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2014 (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.