Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trespass (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 keep. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 08:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Trespass (clothing)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As with my PROD "Seemingly questionably independently notable and improvable article as my searches only found several mentions at News, browsers and Highbeam so far but none of it to suggest better here. I'm not sure if the parent company is perhaps better notable as I haven't closely search for that one but WP:TNT at best for this current article."., my searches found several links but simply nothing to suggest a better notable and improvable article here and it is at best known for being connected to parent company Jacobs & Turner. SwisterTwister  talk  08:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge - clearly the owner Jacobs & Turner is less notable than the Trespass brand, which is seen on many British shopping streets. There are an abundance of good quality secondary sources about the owner, usually headlined as being about the brand. That said, I'm not sure whether Trespass needs to be merged and redirected to the owner (which doesn't yet have a WP page, as far as I can tell) or the other way around. There surely don't need to be pages about both. But simply saying that the brand is not notable but the owner is (whilst the owner doesn't have a WP page) seems counter-intuitive.

JMWt (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * After I read this !vote I assumed there must be a Jacobs & Turner article, and I instinctively agreed that they should be merged (probably with Trespass Clothing as the surviving article, since it is the better-known name). But as you can see from the red link, Jacobs & Turner doesn't exist, and neither for the record does Jacobs and Turner. There is no article to merge with, as far as I can tell. Thparkth (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the NOM says owner is more notable than the brand as a reason to delete but the owner doesn't have a WP page. A merged page should exist, not just deleting. JMWt (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. A quick Google search shows articles by the BBC, The Herald and Daily Record among others. This makes it quite obvious that the article should be kept. Neodop (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep A retail chain with 150 outlets in the UK is notable in real life, and we should expect to find it notable here too. I was easily able to find a significant amount of substantial coverage from impeccable sources. Two obvious ones that aren't in the article:   Thparkth (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete it is an advertisement as it now stands. Perhaps it could be rewritten and merged with the parent company article.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no parent-company article. Thparkth (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, only arguments for deletion are the usual WP:UGLY and the inaccurate WP:BEFORE by the nominator, and none of them are really convinging. Considering the current and the additional available coverage, it's just a matter of cleanup and a clear keep. Cavarrone  19:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article as it stands has issues - it needs improving to be more up to date and less advertorial - but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. The brand has 150 outlets in the UK and is notable as a retailer for that reason. Additionally it was the supplier of clothing to a major international athletics event. Neiltonks (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd say being the official outfitter of a major international athletic event certainly tips the scales to notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per coverage found above. Obviously worthy of inclusion. --Michig (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2015 (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.