Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretty Disturbia


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 18:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Pretty Disturbia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete -- it actually appears to be a brand, not a company. I note that we do not appear to have an article for Etra Design House, its owners.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Uncertain - It seems they may have fallen off the news radar in the past few years because searches at BBC News, The Guardian, Manchester Gazette, MULE (though this newspaper seems to be mostly political), Manchester Evening News and The Telegraph provided nothing substantial aside from Manchester Evening News providing four articles (fairly small and talk about the same stuff) and another The Independent article here. Multiple searches at British fashion magazines didn't yield any results and a search to see if either Leesa Betram or Etra Design House may be notable provided nothing substantial, mostly relevant to Pretty Disturbia so this brand may still not have gained that much attention (still indie, in other words). One side of me recognizes the current references but the other makes me question that the article could use more references. SwisterTwister   talk  02:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep The current sourcing seems to be just sufficient enough to scrape notability, although I am with SwisterTwister here with questioning whether the subject IS notable. It's a very fine line between technical notability and clear notability, and I'm not really seeing clear notability, BUT I am seeing it as notable on technicalities. Mabalu (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete There is some sourcing from independent reliable sources - one item from the Independent, one from the Manchester Evening News, a couple of things in a trade magazine - but it is minimal. I could find nothing to add to the sources already cited in the article. IMO this does not amount to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 17 March 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.