Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jinx (clothing)

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 no consensus. No consensus especially considering the nom and first delete !vote did not re-comment after Czar presented more sources ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jinx (clothing)

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

Inadequate references for notability The references are insubstantial or promotional. The wired one, which is the best, is nonetheless written as an advertorial. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the existing sources demonstrate any real notability or wider cultural impact. I'm genuinely surprised at how fawning the tone of that Wired piece is. Another source is Yellow Rat Bastard Magazine, which is the house magazine from a NY retail outlet and can't be considered a reliable source. A Train^talk 08:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No opinion on YRB but there are plenty of sources on this topic. First, Wired is a reliable source, full stop, and it indisputably goes into depth on the topic. More come from the video game reliable sources custom Google search, mainly prominent announcements: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. The announcements on their own are fluffy, but in terms of the mainstream gaming press, there is enough interest demonstrated (and sources to back up) the clothing line's notability. czar 05:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Frustratingly, news about merchandising companies will almost always be PR. Even though the sources are PR, they are PR about customer-facing deals with several high-profile companies, which lends notability in a different way. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2016 (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.