Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necessary Evil 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   delete.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 13:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Necessary Evil Clothing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Self Promotion JackRose74 (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC) References are mostly affilates and retailers of the brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackRose74 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even with the edits by Amatulic, the article is still very promotional in nature and the sources given are pretty much unusable as far as showing notability for this specific clothing company. A search didn't bring up anything to show that Necessary Evil is a notable company and of the sources in the article, here's why they ultimately don't show any or enough notability to keep: (Note that I've either merged or deleted some of these links, which I'll mention as I go along)
 * This might be usable as a RS, but the article isn't really all that in-depth as far as actual information goes. I'm also slightly concerned that at no point in the article is the company referred to as "Necessary Evil".
 * Dead link and from the name, it seems like it'd just redirect to a clothing merchant website. I've removed it.
 * This is BBC, which leaves no doubt as to whether or not it'd be reliable. It's just that like the first link, this doesn't mention anything about "Necessary Evil" as a company.
 * This isn't actually about the company, but about a potential scandal about someone who models for the company. Not usable in the slightest because even if the model is notable, the company inherits no notability by her wearing them.
 * This is the same link as the third one. I've combined it.
 * This is just a brief article about a photo shoot. The thing about this is that while this is about the company, this website is of dubious reliability as far as sources for Wikipedia goes.
 * This is the first in-depth article that actually mentions the company's name as "Necessary Evil". However we have a problem with the reliability of the website.
 * The thing is, per the interview with Other Clothing, the current label (Necessary Evil) isn't Kate's Clothing renamed, but a different label entirely. Even if we do count them as the same line, there isn't enough here to show notability for the brand. One BBC news article and a Terrorizer article do not make for a depth of coverage to show notability. The only other link we have is for a blog site that doesn't really pass reliability guidelines. It's a delete from my end.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   19:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Tokyogirl's analysis. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 19:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tokyogirl79's excellent-as-usual analysis of the supposed sources. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This should be an AFD mantra: "If TokyoGirl can't source it, it's a lost cause". § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (blushes) I wouldn't say that. There have been times where I've seen people pull stuff out of thin air that I otherwise missed. But thank you for the compliment!Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   17:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as per above - and wish there was a "like" button for FreerangeFrog's comment, with which I totally agree! Mabalu (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There we go :) § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I concur with the source analysis above. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2013 (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.