Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toth Brand Imaging

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toth Brand Imaging

This page was created 4 times (by the same user), and deleted as spam, 4 times in September 2008, and after the 4th delete it was set to "only an admin can create this page". At 15:57, 7 April 2009 this page was re-created as Toth brand imaging, and later in Wikipedia:Requested moves was asked to be moved to Toth Brand Imaging; the requesting user was the user who created this page 4 times before. (I obeyed the move request, and I have left everything un-deleted so users can see it before giving opinions in here.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would just like to note thate despite requesting the move for housekeeping purposes, I did not create the article. I had previously proded the article for deletion myself, however removed that prod when more sources were added. At the moment I have no firm opinion for or against a deletion. Passportguy (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry: I misunderstood the history list. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the malformed nom, keep. The sources seem to establish notability rather well. If Calvin Klein and Coach are its clients, I'm pretty sure that it's notable. ceranthor 12:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Re "malformed nom": I was partway through creating this nom page when it was answered. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, that was a little bitey. I think that the article could be sufficient, but it will need a rewrite. Definitely the latter. ceranthor 12:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this nom made think of WP:INSPECTOR. Sure, the article is a bit spammy, but the references assert notability. Cleanup is what is required here, not deletion. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 12:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the creator of this article, however I am affiliated with this organization and would like to help clean up to where it is appropriate. I have been informed of the prior deletions of this page. If notability is still an issue, please let me know. If it is considered spammy, again, please let me know exactly what aspect of it is spammy and myself or the creator will revise. Thank you.

Mrvades (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do you mean you're "not the creator of this article"? You created it at least FOUR times judging by your edit history. Drawn Some (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notability isn't contagious and having notable clients does not make one notable or we would have a lot more articles about individual hookers than we have now. Drawn Some (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I did attempt to create this article in the past, prematurely and blindly. The article you see now was created by someone else. There is a USA Today cover story from 1999 on this organization where the writer asserts the impact Toth has on popular culture and fashion. I have original copies of this article but it is archived on the USA Today website and only available to view for a fee. (The abstract is available for free). I believe said article would verify notability and I am in the process of figuring out how it can be accessed online. Thank you. Mrvades (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, One two three... 22:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although all of the references are press releases or passing mentions, a Google News Archive search proves that this company passes WP:CORP. See this article from the Boston Business Journal and this article from The New York Times. Cunard (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Barely squeaks by WP:CORP per above ref (which should be included in the article if not already). From the references in the article that I saw, the subject of the article was not the subject of the reference. Some of the references in the article verified the notability of the company's founder which backs his notability, not the company's. Anyway, weak keep and needs to be cleaned up a bit.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:56, 26 May 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.