Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Street Slip


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 10:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Street Slip

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article for this kickstarter project. No independent coverage. Doesn't fulfill Notability (organizations and companies). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Enric Naval (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The page was started for the purpose of introducing a new genre of footwear to the world. The genre of footwear has verifiable third party sources. Again, the current state of its article is not a reason to delete per our editing policy. Samuel (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — Samuelchoong (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. note also that the cofounder of the company is named Samuel 16 seconds into the top video- and they claim the image they uploaded at commons as being their own work and owned by the company that creates the shoes - likely WP:COI --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "was started for the purpose of introducing a new genre of footwear to the world. " is clearly not acceptable reasons for an article as outlined in polices WP:NOTADVERT and WP:OR. Claims of third party coverage must be supported by presentation of those third party sources WP:BURDEN.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as blatant advertising. Wikipedia is not for the purpose of introducing a new genre of anything to the world. If you have third party sources that establish notability please add them to the article.--Shantavira|feed me 13:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * delete no third party coverage presented or found. fails WP:GNG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like an advert to me.  Where are the alleged third-party sources? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as shameless promotion, violative of WP:PROMOTION, as well as WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UPANDCOMING. Do I sense snow coming on? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  01:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notablity provided (and I have failed to find any myself). Current citations are of advertisements. Maproom (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - per OrangeMike ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete – Fails WP:GNG, and is actuall close to speedy-worthy WP:PROMO/WP:G11. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 11:24, 11 February 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.