Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Love Colors


 * 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. v/r - TP 14:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

We Love Colors

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Business spam page that is being policed by an IP account which has reversed an attempt to despamify the spammy and non-standard "Press" section. Company fails notability guidelines. Carrite (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator. This page is clearly a piece of commercial spam. It has been heavily edited by IP accounts who probably love colors. I previously attempted to remove the massive and thoroughly non-standard list of press links but was reversed a few days later by........ one of those IP accounts. I was recently tipped off of this reversion by an email from an infrequent editor who, offended by the spammy and blatantly commercial nature of the page, tried to do the same thing. ClueBot did the work of the color-loving IP for them, owing to the editor's rights status and the fact that he was blanking a section. Well, I don't want to screw around any more, the top section is borderline in terms of inclusion-worthiness and the bulk of the piece is pure We Love Spam. A search of Google returns over a quarter million hits, which gives me brief pause, but the first five pages of returns (the cream of the crop) are advertisements, social media hype-a-thons, and a blog post or two. This subject company fails GNG for the lack of independent and substantial published coverage. Carrite (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - "Step 3" of the manual deletion procedure instructions is screwed up. Following the instructions causes a duplicate listing to be entered on this page. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You've got it right now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Business making hosiery, leotards, and other dancewear.  All of the references are apparently to illustrations in fashion related pages or spreads where one of their products was photographed.  I don't think this reaches the level of significant coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I have been unable to uncover any significant coverage in reliable sources. The dozens of links I have checked are all to spammy looking promotional sites designed to sell the product.  I have been unable to find any coverage to establish notability.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable online fashion store. There is a German-language degree thesis that includes an 11-page case study of the company, covering its history, marketing strategy etc. (The publisher, GRIN, specialises in publishing degree theses, so it's not top drawer, but I think it will do for non-controversial content in an article like this). Feature in BellaOnline. Multiple mentions in LA Times, Washington Post: , The Age, Baltimore Sun, Cool Hunting, Orange County Register, The Maneater, . There seems to be enough for a short article, and a reception section. The article as it stands needs a lot of work of course, but in my view there is enough to meet notability. Probably of little interest to male readers, but a different matter for women readers and editors. ;) -- J N  466  14:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Many more famous brands do not have pages. I've never heard of We Love Colours outside of advertisements. Perhaps the brand might be notable enough when focussing solely on hosiery, but not for the broad scope of Wikipedia. Even if kept it has to be cleaned up and kept to neutral party editors, which it seems the main editor/s is/are not. SquishWaste (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. We are short on articles of interest to women as it is. I'm happy to do some work on the article to bring it in line with policy. but it may be a few days before I can get round to it. -- J N  466  14:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Disclosure: I've asked for some outside eyes on the Gendergap list . -- J N  466  15:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)


 * Delete, the shop is not notable enough for Wikipedia - and i never liked canvassing of any kind.  Béria Lima  msg 15:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - There is blatant canvassing being conducted here by JN, who is incidentally the subject of an ongoing ArbCom case. At least it is transparent but it is still a clear violation of policy, I believe. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think running an issue past the gender gap mailing list constitutes canvassing; more like asking for more opinions. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 21:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Per WP:Canvass:

Appropriate notification * *  * Ideally, such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion.... * *  *

Inappropriate notification is generally considered to be disruptive. * *  *

Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner. Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)... * *  *  Carrite (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit:Carrite (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - To the argument above that Wikipedia doesn't have enough articles appealing to women and that this article might be despammed, sourced out, and saved: that's fine. Do it if you can find the sources. The problem here is that this piece on a Miami company was constructed as a promotional device and is being defended from despamming by two Miami-area IP accounts. Blowing this mother away is one way to take care of the problem. Cleaning it out and defending those changes is another way. I'm not a deletionist or a big meanie about womens' wear — I just don't like spam. This must be fixed or nuked, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2011 (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.