Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skagen Designs
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 keep. Nominated in good faith but no consensus to delete (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Skagen Designs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Fails WP:CORP - the best source I can find is a press release in the associate press, the rest is the usual linkedin profiles etc. Cameron Scott (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Coverage of a law suit and a substantial writeup in Business Week. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Whpq and article in Erhversbladet. --Peter Andersen (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think it was Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who said "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced...but I know it when I see it." I don't really know how this article even got this tag in the first place but maybe a little common sense would help when deciding to tag or not. Skagen is a widely-recognized brand across the globe. And why would Swatch be OK but Skagen Designs not? Huh? Maybe Cameron Scott and others should be more careful in tagging articles for speedy deletion. Also, since when do secondary sources mean only news outlets? aNubiSIII (T / C) 15:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith and keep the discussion about the article, and not the editor. Note that the articel has no references whatsoever. -- Whpq (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, there was no assumption of bad faith here, merely that of carelessness but telling another user "to assume good faith" is an assumption of bad faith; it's funny I know but just a friendly reminder aNubiSIII (T / C) 15:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So yes, a notice about AGF is always problematic. However, I made my comment based the post calling out the behaviour of a specific editor (Cameron Scott) as an example, and calling for care to be taken. If you look at the article history, you will note that this AFD is not a knee jerk reaction to a PROD removal. And the editor even tagged the article for refrencing. So singling him out for bringing this to AFD is simply not appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, there was no assumption of bad faith here, merely that of carelessness but telling another user "to assume good faith" is an assumption of bad faith; it's funny I know but just a friendly reminder aNubiSIII (T / C) 15:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith and keep the discussion about the article, and not the editor. Note that the articel has no references whatsoever. -- Whpq (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.