Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suta (clothing)


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Suta (clothing)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

So far, nothing to add on this Blatant misuse of Wikipedia. Only interest is to build an online reputation and Luring customers in the name of Wikipedia. Burn it. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Retain: currently has "Disambiguation" page. Only reason to create it is because of their unique way of sourcing of textiles: directly from handweavers in different states of India. Heard about them at a start-up forum where they stood out. Bare-bones article written with complete neutrality. absolutely no COI. Akshaygn (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Then how about reliable sources? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, WP:PROMO, WP:NOTDIRECTORY; insufficient RS to validate any claim to notability. WP:TOOSOON may also apply since the article creator's original edit summary states that the firm is "upcoming." &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  08:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG and WP:SPIP, fails criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing ++ 14:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Probably an A7, as there is nothing in the article to indicate even importance, let alone notability  DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural close The proposal to burn is uncivil and incendiary.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Retain: Made a last attempt at adding verified independent websites - reliable sources. Please check and I leave it here. The decision that is taken after this is binding - We can accept.
 * Comment You added 5 sources. This Zepo article is a blog post and blog posts are not regarded as reliable sources. Also the article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it rely's on quotations from company personnel as a news story. Similarly, the keepmestylish reference is not a true "publication" and fails the criteria for reliable sources. The womentorship reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND since it is a question/answer format interview with the founders. It is not intellectually independent. Your fourth reference from cityshor is from a questionable reliable source but leaving that aside, it is clearly a promotional piece with more photographs than text. The PretCurry reference is a lovely website but fails as a reliable source. It is a one-(wo)man fashion blog. Finally, the deblinarababi reference also fails as a reliable source for the same reason - it is a one-(wo)man fashion blog. -- HighKing ++ 11:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails the GNG. Like I said in Articles for deletion/Shift (website), appeals for fire are not necessary for something as low key as a promo piece. L3X1 (distænt write)  02:32, 3 September 2017 (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.