Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coolture

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coolture[edit]

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

There is not enough reliable source information for this corporation/company ~~or its product vest~~ to meet WP:GNG. There's a sentence that might be about the company's vest product in [1]. There's a July 20, 2012 sentence mentioning that Dr. Thomas Stewart is president and CEO of Coolture of Buffalo.[2]. There also is a decent, but 22 day old article.[3] As for the article, the first reference in the Wikipedia article, "Coolture: Fighting Heat Intolerance With Fashion - UB NewsCenter". Buffalo.edu. 2012-08-17. Retrieved 2012-09-26., is a press release.[4] The second reference in the Wikipedia article, "What's the Need for a Vet School in Buffalo? | WKBW News 7: News, Sports, Weather | Buffalo, NY | Top Stories". Wkbw.com. 2012-09-07. Retrieved 2012-09-26., has only two sentence about how sales are heating up for Buffalo company Coolture. There is not enough WP:GNG source material for there to be a stand alone article on the company topic. Delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added in additional references that prove this meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 13:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- the sourcing for this article consists of nothing but a bunch of trivial name-drops and I can't find anything better. Reyk _YO! 00:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I agree that WP:GNG isn't met, namely as to substantial coverage. WP:CORPDEPTH isn't met either. JFHJr (㊟) 04:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not significant coverage? [5] The news article also has a video of the television news coverage. Ample coverage is listed at [6]. [7] isn't as long but is entirely about this company. [8] is hidden behind a paywall but clearly covers it. Dream Focus 11:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[9] is a promotional piece by the University of Buffalo because of their involvement. [10] is local news coverage. [11] doesn't look like a reliable source, it looks self published. [12] is local news coverage (see where it is marked local). These sources don't contribute strongly towards GNG as demonstrated by the stub. There isn't even much coverage of material given by these sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Local or not, that [13] counts as coverage. Coverage doesn't have to be nation wide. And bizjournals counts as reliable source also, they having proper editorial oversight and a professional staff and meeting all other requirements. That's why 8,218 Wikipedia articles reference them. [14] Dream Focus 19:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been improved and sources added since nomination. [15] Dream Focus 19:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, the AfD process refuses to fit a square peg in a round hole. In reply to your request on my talk page,[16] arguing that Coolture vest topic meets WP:GNG is not a convincing argument to sway an AfD closer that the Coolture company topic meet WP:GNG. The current Wikipedia article[17] mostly is about Mr. Van DiBernardo as a topic but is supposed to be about the Coolture company, making it a coatrack of a topic for which we are currently trying to decide whether meets WP:GNG based on reliable sources writing about the Coolture product. That's probably not the best AfD strategy. You may want to first gather all the reliable source information available, look at it in the collective, decide whether to write a biography article, a company article, or a product article, and then pursue that since WP:GNG is topic specific based on what is the primary topic brought out from the reliable sources. For example, my decision to write Safetray as a product article instead of a company article or a biography article appears to have been successful (so far).[18] I found that topic while working the WP:COIN, but tried to fly too close to the sun when I listed the article at DYK to appear on the main page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do the sources provided prove the Coolture company and cooling vest are notable enough to pass WP:GNG and thus have an article dedicated to them? That's is what AFD exist to determine, not the current state of the article. I believe listing how a company was founded, and why, is important. Dream Focus 16:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I limited the AfD request to focus on the topic of the article, which is the company. Otherwise, we could end up approving a product article by receive a company article. There is no coolture vest or coolture (vest) article so it's too early to make any decisions on that. Sorry for any confusions. That also means you can post a coolture vest/coolture (vest) article since this AfD does not address that topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to make an article for the product, and the person who created the company, when all the information goes well together on one page. Dream Focus 18:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 09:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete No significant coverage of the company, as Uzma pointed out. I would say the product isn't notable either, but I'll save it for the other AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2012 (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.