Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osklen (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--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Osklen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. I am also not seeing any RS in Google/Google News. Prior AfD had participants noting that the company is known in Brazil, but nobody provided a single reliable source... yet. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not trying to be WP:IDONTKNOWIT, but I'm Brazilian and I've never heard of them ( maybe because I'm not rich ). Jokes aside, I don't question the company's notability, but, c'mon, just look at this page. "Osklen is a Brazilian fashion brand based on harmonization of contrasts, in which urban and nature, organic and technological live together"; "Osklen makes clothes for people who identify with the lifestyle offered by the brand" - such sentences in an encyclopedic entry? Really? Can't even understand how it actually survived its first nomination. Victão Lopes  Fala! 17:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for now at least as I'm not seeing much convincingly better. SwisterTwister   talk  07:16, 24 October 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.