Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piping Hot (surfwear)


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Piping Hot (surfwear)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Company appears to be not of note, one or two local secondary references only. Trevor Marron (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No website, and the first revision of this article may be a restoration of previously deleted content since it already had a tag on it dated March 2008.  That said, the two main editors of this page seem to be experienced content creators so I would like to hear their point of view. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 16:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I stumbled across this article, and cleaned it up. But as I have said/fully agreed with the nominator in discussion, there appear too few reliable sources/references to make a decent and useful article. At one point it was a notable clothing range in surfing, but since the main companies demise and lack of its own/suppliers website, the only sources would be written material. Happy to revise my view, but at present it seems a clear case of lack of references to substantiate notability. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - This article call the brand iconic. This article is behind a pay wall so it's not celar what the contents are but it does appear to be primarily about the company.  The sydney Morning Herlad calls it a famous surfwear brand.  If the references are in print rather than offline, that's a reason to tag it for additional referencing and not deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per Whpq. Crafty (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I found the business related pubs that Whpq did. Someone should keep a keen eye on this for peacocking/promotional language, because there's not a lot of article content justified given the scant sources. Shadowjams (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2009 (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.