Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smathers & Branson


 * 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   delete. Shimeru (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Smathers & Branson
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable company, no references, article serves only to promote. PhGustaf (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Note that this is aboutan upscale American fashion clothing brand that specializes in needlepoint belts.  Google News finds only trivial coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * comment if the writer can show that the brand is featured in Vanity fair and another publication via references, then we should be able to keep this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep have added references. Page could still be expanded but the subject is sufficiently noteworthy and should now be maintained.Baseballtom (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean references in the independent publications. So if Vanity fair writes about it, we need a reference that says which edition and page it is on.  And a model that just happens to wear an accessary made by the company without any explanation does not count as a reference. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but those seem to be pretty subjective and strict standards for citation. I really have no idea how to get hold of an old issue like that but I feel the article as it stands states its relevancy.  In any case, there are two other full references to external publications on the page already. have no stake in the company, so I'd be glad to trim the article down if it seems overly promotional.  I wouldn't say the brand is major, but it is quickly growing and has enough recognizability in the Eastern United States to merit a wikipedia page (there are many less noteworthy brands with pages already).Baseballtom (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. If Vanity Fair devoted a feature article to this business and its wares, that would be significant. If they added a tag to a model photo or a collection of items that said "Belt by Smathers & Branson" on a model photograph, that would not be significant.  Even the material at their press page seems to be almost exclusively the latter. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Smerdis of Tlön, conditional on no additional references. Baseballtom, regarding the criteria, please see WP:OSE and WP:N. As for getting hold of an 'old' issue of Vanity Fair, my suggestion would be a trip to a local library, best of luck. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, notability has not been established as far as I can see. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2010 (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.