Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skullcandy (2nd nomination)


 * 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, default to keep. Dreadstar †  02:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Skullcandy
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete: Fails WP:CORP and WP:RS.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article has no sources, is consequently unverifiable, and makes no assertion of notability.  OlenWhitaker   • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral. In light of the Google news hits and addition of a reference, I've changed my mind.  It appears this company might be notable after all, though the article had not given me a reason to think so.  That being the case, I'd like to wait and see if a decent treatment of this subject can be formulated.  OlenWhitaker   • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 16:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete Per A7 Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 01:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Unsourced and non-notable. Luk  suh  02:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was on the verge of speedy deleting this as an A7 or G11, but the google news hits show some solid potential sources.  Based on what I see there, the company is notable and a decent article can be written.  I added a quick reference and will try to work on it a bit more over the next few days.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep crap article, good subject. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've added to the text a bit and included several more references.  Skullcandy's market penetration must be pretty good, as two of the references are from Britain and Australia.  I'm personally satisfied that the company is sufficiently notable, and I hope those initially supporting deletion will take another look.-- Kubigula (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per changes by Kubigula. Article now meets WP:CORP.--MrFishGo Fish 19:31, 7 April 2008 (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.