Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palladium boots


 * 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  Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Palladium boots

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete No evidence of notability. The only source cited is a blog post. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Company with 90 years of history and a recognisable international brand. References are not hard to find, including this just posted today. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think that Palladium is a notable company and brand. This stub needs to be retitled to make it clear that it is about a footwear company, not about its product — at a minimum. It's a poor article and I hate coming to the defense of those. I can see wiping it out and hoping that someone will do a fully-assed job sometime in the future... Carrite (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, weakly. I'm not sure that a single paragraph in on a fashion page is enough in-depth coverage of a business to sustain an article, and Google News and Books don't come up with anything deeper.  Does this mean that my osmium boots are out of style? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, I can't find significant coverage. -- Nuujinn (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think the Montreal Gazette article is enough either. We need to hold articles about businesses to the "significant coverage" standard lest our articles become a vehicle for promotion. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2010 (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.