Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sang Bleu (tattoo)


 * 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. Nakon 00:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Sang Bleu (tattoo)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page looks to be a WP:SYNTHesis a mix of things. It's not clear if we are talking about a magazine, a tattoo shop, Maxine Buchi, or what. Note that this draft was rejected via AFC at Draft:Sang Bleu by one editor, created again at User:Bilishti95/sandbox/sangb by another editor and now we have this version. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I see that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sang Bleu was closed by you as delete, even though there was no consensus to delete, really. Was more procedural thing, I suppose, in that the draft article became moot. I am alerting in case he wishes to comment. Anyway, as for this article, I count at least five reliable sources. Whatever the problems with the article, this company seems to be notable and meet WP:ORG. Plus, I feel odd like saying this to an administrator, but I think you're misrepresenting or misunderstanding WP:SYNTH. If a business venture has a lot of different activities, it isn't SYNTH to try and write one article that mentions all of them, surely. Keep and rename to Sang Bleu. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is if there's no actual sources about the overall business venture that show that the venture is independently notable. This feel like it's arguing for an inherited notability for the business venture based on a mess of sourcing about the tattoo business, about the person and about the magazine and the remainder to shoehorn a clearly promotional page together. As to the MFD, there was support for deletion and one oppose based on WP:BITE which is a moot issue when another week had passed and the content was already been moved around. Otherwise, feel free to discuss it on my talk page further. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Judging by the article and the official site, this does seem to be a business project that operates a tattoo franchise, a magazine, a creative agency, licenses a clothing brand, etc. It does seem to be an entity owned by the husband-and-wife Plescia-Büchi team, with a lot of different branches. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine but is all of it notable? Is the clothing brand notable? I don't see any mention of it in the sources. If the magazine notable? Is the creative agency itself notable? The tattoo shop possibly seems notable. The fact that they want to expand into a multitude of different areas doesn't mean that we should just string together everything to make the conglomerate an article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We have enough significant coverage in the various WP:RS to meet WP:GNG, it seems to me. As for clothing line, it is mentioned in the second ref, l'Hebdo. Collectively, once again, all told, this commercial venture by the Plescia-Büchi seems to me to clearly meet WP:ORG. We have a great many articles on companies with various brands or subsidiaries. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And I must add that I too don't have a strong feeling on this one. So please consider my !vote above more of a weak one. (Except for the rename part: if we do keep it, a disambiguator obviously isn't required. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: Ping noted, but I don't have a strong enough opinion either way. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources seem sufficient. Rename suggestion above may have some merit. Artw (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2016 (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.