Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topo Designs


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Topo Designs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The only good reference I see is, which is a local interview. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Power~enwiki I understood the Denver Post to be significant, reliable and secondary, but considering I have yet to find another source that meets this criteria, I do not oppose your nomination for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stussll (talk • contribs) 06:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets the WP:GNG. Besides the Denver Post article, we have non-trivial articles from Rocky Mountain Collegian,  Hoodline,  Business Insider,  KUSA (TV) and Denver Business Journal (basically same article),  GearJunkie,  303 Magazine, and  Forbes. Then there are dozens of articles that have paragraphs about individual Topo products or the store, including such big name sources as Wired, Self magazine, Seattle Times, Wired again, Outside magazine, 5280 magazine, Travel and Leisure,  Forbes again, and GQ. ---GRuban (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * GRuban How do WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG relate? Given the context, I assumed the criteria in WP:CORPDEPTH should be the standard used to determine notability and thus supersede those in WP:GNG. If there is an existing discussion on this topic you can point me to I'd greatly appreciate it. I'm new to editing so doing my best to get up to speed. Stussll (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, please be aware that the criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations are described in WP:NCORP. Both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP describe the same criteria but whereas GNG is a general guide for all topics, NCORP provides specific examples and interpretations to assist with companies/organizations. This means that the references that meet the criteria for establishing notability go beyond WP:RS. For example, CORPDEPTH (a part of NCORP) provides guidelines on the type of content expected within a reference. Similarly, ORGIND provides guidelines on the type of content that is considered "independent" and explains that the content must be both "funcional" independent and "intellectually" independent.  HighKing</b>++ 17:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The statement "non-trivial articles" provided by GRuban above caught my eye. This is only a part of the criteria a reference must meet. But, be aware, references must also meet the other criteria detailed in the other parts of NCORP. An analysis of the references listed by GRuban:
 * This Collegian reference relies on statements by an employee, no indication of independent analysis or opinion (intellectual independent), fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This Hoodline reference is a trivial article, fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it contains no in-depth information on the company and fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on information provided by an employee, no intellectual independence.
 * The second Hoodline reference is a trivial article basically stating that Topo Designs was about to open a store in SF and that it sells a wide variety of bags, all handmade in Colorado. It contains no in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV.
 * This 9News article is also a trivial article and fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * This gearjunkie reference has no attributed journalist or author (staff post), fails WP:RS.
 * This 303 reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it contains no information about the company.
 * The Forbes reference is on one of their Blog sites (click the little (i) after the author's name) and fails WP:RS
 * None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, references are churnalism, product reviews, interviews, etc, just the normal press activity we'd expect from any company. No significant or in-depth coverage. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 17:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I generally agree with your assessment of each of the article's included sources. Although, about the Forbes article...are you suggesting any article written by a Forbes "contributor" fails WP:RS? In this context–where the author has spoken to executives from the companies she is reporting on–I'd assumed she could be considered reliable. Secondarily, what, if any, impact does a source's prior writing (i.e. The Guardian and Quartz), have on their reliability? [Comment added by, not signed.]
 * Response In WP:ORGIND, see the examples of dependent coverage. It usually comes down to whether the article was subject to editorial control/standards - the "sites" on Forbes do not. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Understood, – thank you for clarifying. Stussll (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:ORGDEPTH; the coverage is hyper-local and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per HighKing's analysis, and eg The Hoodline provides local news (WP:AUD) and the collegian has no analysis but is instead promotional, with sentences like "Colorado-based outdoor bag and apparel company Topo Designs values the outdoors and community." Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.