Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sissy-Boy


 * 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Sissy-Boy
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This company, which uses an anti-gay/anti-trans slur as its name (possibly reclaimed?), was protected as a redirect to "Sissy", but the page has repeatedly been re-created. Most recently, the reason for this was an assertion that it would survive AfD, but the person making the assertion did not bother to nominate it to substantiate this claim. The references used in the article are broken (and looked like poor incidental mentions to begin with), there does not appear to be substantial third-party coverage establishing its notability (at least in English), and--although I know it is not dispositive--there is no Dutch page for this Dutch brand. Not every brand sold in stores is notable. Where is the "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"? Bueller 007 (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Bueller 007, if you want to take issue with a company that in 1982 indeed reclaimed that term by proudly putting it on stores and on t-shirts, I suggest you take it up with them. Also, you should consider pinging the creator instead of referring to "that person". Of course, you could have pinged me already when you redirected it, without any discussion. You could also have told me you were putting it up for deletion. And suggesting that I should have nominated my own article for deletion just so I can prove you wrong is--well, what is the word? "Ridiculous" is the word. Is this sour grapes, Bueller? Also, Keep. Plenty of coverage. Recent news added--from one of the national dailies, and from the biggest national broadcaster. I'm wondering how carefully you read the article. It's not clothes sold in a store--it's a clothing store, with their own brand of clothes. It's forty years old. And what dead links? No, maybe no English coverage, but you should know that means nothing. No article in the Dutch wiki? Totally irrelevant--and articles on the Dutch wiki are often terrible anyway, and have no sourcing. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, this looks more like an attack on a name than a serious concern about the notability of the subject. I consider emptying the article as vandalism. Did you do a proper WP:BEFORE? The Banner  talk 23:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The sources were out there all the time. Now they are in the article. Nominators should not nominate an article because they do not like the name of the topic and only ask where the references are. Enwiki does not have any rules that invalidate sources in the Dutch language. The article passes WP:ORGCRIT, the nomination fails WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. It would be fine to rename the article Termeer that has a wiki on a regional Dutch wiki-based encyclopedia. Sacha shoes, another subsidiary of Termeer has an entry at Nlwiki. As long as an intro on the parent and chapters on the subsidiaries are provided, this would he a legit approach to resolving nom's concern, further fostering quality coverage on Enwiki. gidonb (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't thin the nominator's concerns were justified in the first place, and we have many articles on such brands/stores/products/subsidiaries where the main "owner" doesn't have an article. Plus, it was a takeover--Sissy-Boy started independently. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hence my keep. My point is that the subject is notable as is so deletion is not an option. Another organization is possible and would entail a lot of work. gidonb (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2022 (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.