Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onia (brand)

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. (For those curious, the paywalled NYT source was a page of a slide show similar to the WSJ source, but with a longer paragraph.) czar ⨹ 14:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Onia (brand)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company fails WP:CORP Philg88 ^♦talk 15:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks for pointing this out. I've added several additional references, including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Onia is recognized in world-wide fashion industry publications, as well as general-interest publications, as an industry leader. The article now meets all 4 primary criteria - Depth of Coverage, Audience, Independence of Sources, and Illegal Conduct, under WP:CORP, therefore I believe the AfD tag should be removed. Transatlanick (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The more I look at this article, the less I find. All we seem to have to say about this brand is that it is a brand of swimwear sold in various shops. That really doesn't seem worth an article. There are lots of brands of swimwear shorts for men, and if that's all we have to say, it's not enough. The sources generally seem promotional in tone and of questionable independence. The NYT and WSJ mentions are thin fluff. The WSJ entry is just a photo with a caption. (I don't know what's in the NYT source, as I don't have a subscription and the site won't let me see the article without one, but at first glance all it appears to say is that here's some stuff I might bring to the beach with me, and provides an example being this brand's pair of shorts.) —BarrelProof (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the nomination for deletion—and I appreciate that you've tried your hardest to improve the article before !voting here. Philg88 ^♦talk 17:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated, but add to the List of swimwear brands, with the second and third references (non self-published references) included. The list could be improved by adding a column for "notes" or something like that, and including some of the other info there. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 05:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @WPGA2345, pinging you, in case you want to do this czar ⨹ 13:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the articles establish that the subject passes WP:GNG. (While not a reason on it's own to delete - the article also seems to have been self-created.) --Jersey92 (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2014 (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.