Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FashionIQ
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] FashionIQ
NN website/corporation per WP:CORP/WP:WEB. The article has been speedy deleted per A7 a couple of times, I had previously prodded it, but in all honesty I think the site is explained well enough to pass the CSD test, and we should have a fair debate on it here, followed by a quick deletion. Mangojuicetalk 13:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedydelete (which I've already done 3 times). It has no evidence of any notability per WP:WEB I'm afraid.Tyrenius 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)- I don't think we can G4 this, because it's a contested speedy. Doesn't it have to go through AfD at this point? Caknuck 16:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- You're right. No point speedying again (A7) as it can be recreated. Let's leave it to AfD. Tyrenius 16:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- And I think it's questionable whether A7 should apply. When we ask for articles on corporations to make claims that their company is important or significant, we're actually pushing them to write spam. In my view, if the article explains the company enough that we can get a good idea what it is, and it seems unique or at least not heavily duplicated, A7 should not apply. If it seems heavily duplicated (say, an article on a dry cleaning establishment), some kind of claim of importance must be needed. Mangojuicetalk 16:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- You're right. No point speedying again (A7) as it can be recreated. Let's leave it to AfD. Tyrenius 16:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think we can G4 this, because it's a contested speedy. Doesn't it have to go through AfD at this point? Caknuck 16:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:WEB & WP:CORP. Author has yet to make a case for notability. Caknuck 16:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, though willing to consider a change if promised sources are provided. Not able to find a bit of non-trivial coverage myself. Seraphimblade 21:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I've seen this article reposted repeatedly, though this time the author remembered not to write in the first person. Seriously, is there any method of shoe shopping that merits an encyclopedia entry? I don't think so. Magichands 23:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Commercial shopoholic unencyclopedic spam. Salt. Athænara ✉ 06:49, 14 January 2007 (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.
