Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vogue Tyre


 * 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   no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Closing this as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination due to a combination of 1) a lack of adequate input and 2) additional factors: one of the listed sources in the first !vote is a short business listing from Bloomberg (which doesn't serve to establish notability), and the second !vote states that the sources are "...probably enough to show notability", rather than those definitely qualifying notability. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 22:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Vogue Tyre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:CORP. Sources cited are generally of low quality with the only high quality one being this short obituary. I have searched for better sources but have not been able to find anything suitable. I found that the article was listed in a blocked editor's Wikipedia Portfolio of 'completed projects' and therefore and it therefore demands close scrutiny. SmartSE (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep some of the other sources in the article are WP:RS. This passes WP:GNG. I think this, this and this are among the additional RSs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. A long-lived tire brand; the cited sources are not great but probably enough to show notability. The article could benefit from some judicious editing to reduce the promotional tone. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:00, 9 September 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.