Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart shoe


 * 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. Ekabhishektalk 05:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Smart shoe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ORG. Completely new company or start up with no notability. scope_creep 17:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete. This company is new and appears completely not notable and fails WP:N. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Okay, I admit, I think this is a pretty dumb product enjoying its 15 minutes.  But even if I can't be interested in a vibrating shoe, that's really not the test.  The test is whether other people do and whether they do it in  multiple reliable independent secondary sources.  When those sources include Forbes and the Wall Street Journal, I have to concede, that's really all it takes.  Msnicki (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your argument is warping WP, totally. It's a brand new company less than 2 weeks old. It is simply not notable, at any level. On top of that it's asserting WP:NOTADVERTISING which itself breaks WP:N. Also, both WSJ and Forbes, list any company which get tier 1 or 2 seed funding in any country that is a trade partner of America. To paraphrase in the Glaswegian, If some company invented a new way to shovel sh't, and it got investor funding, WSJ and Forbes would document it, that doesn't mean anything. If it turns out to be no consensus, I'll need to be escalate it up the chain, because all it is is turning WP into an add platform and directory. scope_creep talk 17:06  9 September  2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Another ill-considered nomination from this nom, who's racking up a lot of bad AfDs in recent days. Plainly an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination, because if he claims that this fails WP:ORG, I can only respond that he has no idea what WP:ORG says -- the very first sentence of the guideline is "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."  Forbes and the Wall Street Journal count.  The nom may "escalate" all he likes, but he might be startled to find that AfD has no appeals process.  From a nom who's been making AfD nominations for nine years, this degree of misunderstanding is inexplicable.   Ravenswing   09:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Dude, that's really crass and totally unfair, and sarcastic to make the same comment on several Afd, they don't add to the debate and make you look incoherent. Personnel attacks are so contemptible. The reason I've been voting so many Afd, Prods and Speedy Deletes is because WP is slowly but surely becoming a corporate directory, which the vision of the original certainly didn't envisage, and which is slowly subverting it. As for each of these articles, I think personally that each of them is non notable. Most of them were Afd;d because I believe each of them are non notable. In each instance, I've checked each sources, in Google, GBooks, Bing, Maps, Google Earth, Google Translate and Enc. Brit,Columbia, and all of them didn't show clear notability. Only afterwards, does real sources show. As regards the above, it's non clearly WP:GNG. It's a month old company, using WP as an advertising platform, to sell it's products. Plain and simple. Any marketing company/PA primary purpose is to get the customer into WP.  It's wholly non-notable. 5 years ago. The notability guidelines are just that, guidelines. Nobody is forcing you to the Afd. Why not push off.  scope_creep talk  15:55  10 September  2014 (UTC)
 * Reply: Ahem. "Why not push off?" is not the response one would expect from someone who believes others are being "crass" or "unfair." That being said, you have been on Wikipedia far too long not to get the basic premise about notability we expect any newcomer to understand: that "notability" does not mean "I think it's important," but that the subject meets our guidelines and policies regarding notability and verifiability.  If you don't like the GNG or the various subordinate notability criteria, then seek to change them at their talk pages.  AfD is not the venue for that, and it is certainly not the venue for obvious and blatant misrepresentations of those criteria. As far as this particular subject goes, you're just plain offbase.  The article creator's been on Wikipedia for three and a half years, and he's got over six thousand edits.  He plainly has broad interest in India-based topics, which comprise the overwhelming number of his edits.  If you're going to violate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and accuse him of being a paid shill for this company (an accusation that judging from your recent AfDs you toss around quite often and very casually), you had better have some evidence to back it up.  Where is that evidence, please?   Ravenswing   23:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is about a "smart technology footware" a historical invention. It is neither about a company or person, Except in hostory section one cannot find any company name and I think that is reasonable because atleast readers should know who invented the product first. Infact to avoid the article to look like a promotion or advertise I did not mention the inventors names, more over to make it more reliable I choosed the sources that focus on "invention" and not on company or inventors. Any way you all know much more about WP policies and hope fair justice will be done to article and due to some personal schedule I could not respond instantly so please bare/excuse me for late reply. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:GOLDEN RULE ~KvnG 23:23, 11 September 2014 (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.