Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TFG Sports


 * 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. There appear to be two possible subjects, neither obviously notable. After two relistings and no further input, I invoke WP:NOQUORUM - this is a soft delete, similar to a PROD, and the article will be restored on request at WP:REFUND. JohnCD (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

TFG Sports

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I have no position on the article being deleted, but to aid those who participate in this AfD, I have to share this. If you go to Google or another similar search engine and look up 'TFG Sports', you'll find two companies that need to be distinguished.
 * A South African sports retail chain. There's an article about them in the African Business Journal. TFG here stands for 'Track and Field Group'
 * The subject of this article, a UK-based sportswear company. The 'TFG' in 'TFG Sports' here stands for 'The Fielding Group'. Their website is tfgsports.com, only it doesn't actually work and just returns the word "test". They are a subdivision of a larger company, The Fielding Group, who manufacture clothes for a wide range of retailers in both the sportswear and more general clothing sector.
 * I think the most promising course of action, if sources can be found, is probably to create a stub called 'The Fielding Group' and redirect to that. As for sources? The best I can find are The Independent and New York Times, although the latter is really more of a passing mention. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:17, 11 February 2012 (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.