Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolved athletic 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolved athletic brand

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

DePRODDED by creator. A Google search for "evolved GuerillaHouse" (the latter is the parent company, added to search to disambiguate commonly used "evolved") reveals no WP:RS indicating this company meets the basic notability requirements of WP:CORP at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, a business without any showing of sub-minimal importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A CSD was contested a few days back, so speedying it is no longer an option. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that only worked that way for contested PRODs. If the speedy wasn't declined by an admin, it should still be able to be speedied? DarkAudit (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. But hey, be my guest. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it may be prudent not to, although it remains my opinion that this fails to make a minimal showing of importance. But I don't think that rules out giving the opinion that it ought to be deleted on that ground, either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam. Tagged as such. AfD should not have to deal with cases like this. Wikipedia is not to be used as the extension of your marketing department. DarkAudit (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is this spam? It does not promote the company. The only crime here is that the author has a possible COI, but that's not something we can confirm. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 18:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I deleted the CSD template, but at this time it does not meet WP:CORP. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 18:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not tagging with WP:CSD#A7, and rather I'm voting in this AFD as policy states "Delete the article, by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains. However, if an article contains only blatant advertising, with no other useful content, it may be tagged per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion instead." This does not contain blatant advertising. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 18:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep it. We're all just making a big deal out of nothing. No, it's not advertising, it is a real company with a devoted fan base and written objectively as possible. Their is more information to come, please keep in mind the author is new to Wiki and was following a template from another company. There is more information to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karitakon (talk • contribs) 11:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Karitakon (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Karitakon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 20 November 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.