Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOMS SHOES (2nd nomination)

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. Cirt (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TOMS Shoes

WP:SPAM: Previously deleted via Afd, and at least once again since, it still reads like an ad/press release.

TIMELINE

2006-07-19: Article deleted via AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/TOMS SHOES)
2007 - 2008: Deleted at least once again ({{prod}} or {{db}}?)
2008-12-16: Recreated by Cac04d
2009-03-04: Edits by OlYeller21 added references, including a press release issued by the subject of the article
2009-04-02: {{db-g4}} added by Danorton
2009-04-03: {{db-g4}} removed by OlYeller21 noting that "The article now aserts notability per the litmus test of notability."

WP:NOTE was only one of the complaints mentioned when this article was discussed and deleted in 2006. The content of the article remains substantially unchanged, still reads like an ad, and otherwise provides virtually no encyclopedic information. —Danorton (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Danorton (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nomination —Danorton (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article has changed substantially since I submitted it for deletion. Notability was never at issue. The current version is unrecognizable from the original, it lacks the former promotional wording and content, it is thoroughly referenced, it follows all policies, and it is written in a clear and fluent style. I am glad to have been proven wrong. —Danorton (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The previous discussion concluded with a unanimous DELETE, with one non-voting and complaining comment by the creator of the article (who failed to sign the comment and who assumed the same name as the subject of the article) —Danorton (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks well referenced from the article, and I'm pretty sure i've read about these in some newspaper or magazine. Google news agrees riffic (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The forbes.com reference in the article is a dead link. The link that says Vogue goes to some other website, and a blog at that. Its very very adverty in tone. Every google hit I get is someone selling the damned things. It's a delete for me Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the original forbes.com ref was a dead prnewswire feed which has been removed. riffic (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Woops! I deleted that dead link but apparently re-inserted it on my following edit. That link is actually the press release I referred to above (also here: http://www.prnewswire.com/mnr/tomsshoes/36223/) —Danorton (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is clear that the references provided on the article (including CNN, added since this nomination was made) establish notability. I42 (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No doubt that this article has too much self-promotional fluff. It should be excised of the timeline, advertising copy and other puffery. I've also gone ahead and clarified that that award is not an actual National Design Award, but rather an online popularity contest sponsored by the museum. That being said, the substantial mentions in the Seattle Pos-Intelligencer, Forbes, CNN, Fortune', and Vogue definitely provide enough significant coverage to pass notability criteria for a company and warrant a keep. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like Cactus pointed out, the article has recieved significant coverage in the Seattle PI, CNN, Forbes, Vogue, and Fortune. That's more than enough to show notability. I'd also like to point out that the speedy tag you added was a db-corp and not for spam (like the AfD nom). Why the change? OlYeller^Talktome 13:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you were addressing me, I actually added a {{db-g4}} tag, which has three components:
  1. The article was previously deleted via AfD (This is not disputed),
  2. The new article is substantially identical (This seems to be unverifiable but, as I recall, this current incarnation even retains the typos from the prior version), and
  3. The changes don't address all of the problems that led to the original deletion. (I allow that the notability references are improved, but that wasn't the only complaint: the underlying text remains indistinguishable from an advertisement.) —Danorton (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, this article is vastly improved over the one deleted previously via AfD, so G4 does not apply here. Second, this article has enough reliable sources that general notability is satisfied. Cleanup of the tone is in order, yes, but that's not reason to delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vastly improved over last deletion version. Meets notability with several reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 15:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thus far, there is a lot of argument in support of satisfying notability, and no opposition, not even in the nomination. I would be interested in reading more discussion regarding the reason given for this nomination: WP:SPAM. —Danorton (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although the references might have improved, I don't believe that the article content has materially changed or improved since the last AfD. Is there any way to view the deleted version? Would that be relevant? —Danorton (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is tagging the article for rescue immediately after an AfD nomination equivalent to votestacking? —Danorton (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty in describing any company, once it has passed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria, is keeping out the WP:SPAM. Especially for a company like this one which is being reported in the media particularly for its charitable service -- and that charitable service is itself used as a vehicle for advertising the company. (That is part of interest shown by Fortune and Forbes.) The line between description and promotion is delicate but the article can be edited to meet NPOV requirements. I've taken a preliminary wack at it to remove the more blatant ad copy -- it could use more. But, at this point, I think WP:ADVERT problems can be addressed through editing rather than deletion. — CactusWriter | ^needles 23:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: your concerns about votestacking. There was no problem with the editor adding a tag. Deletion policy here encourages improvement of an article during the Afd process, including the addition of the Rescue Template. — CactusWriter | ^needles 23:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the final outcome in this instance is that the article is edited to remove ad and promotional statements, such as "The founder claims...blah blah blah" (when "blah blah blah" isn't neutrally referenced), and edited to add unbiased substance, then I'm all for such improvement. That's not likely to happen in this instance and, if I thought it were likely, I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion. Making AfD a part of the process of improvement is not constructive or efficient. Bad articles should be removed or timely improved. Anyone can recreate an acceptable form of it when it has been substantially improved. I'm one of many who feel this way, but I'm not about to go and announce this to the "Deletion Squadron," because I don't feel that would be constructive or produce a neutral discussion. Instead of a biased discussion, it would become a polarized discussion. Rather than decide this in an argument over what policy should be, the article should be deleted because of what the policy is: articles should not serve as promotional vehicles, as this one intends. —Danorton (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it was the Rescue tag that got my own attention. If you compare the article as first nominated to what it is now, you'll see the results of it now recieving some long needed attention. Should have happened much earler. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then salt. Fails CORP and multimple spamming of non-notable companies should be stopped.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:CORP per provided sources and then send to WP:CLEANUP to remove sense of advert. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have removed the extraneous fluff, added a few additional sources and reworked the article to set a NPOV. Its smaller, sweeter, and definitely worthy of wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its looking like a proper article now. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously, this met GNG quickly and the rest is regular clean-up. If it feels spammy then make suggestions for improvement or ... fix it. -- Banjeboi 09:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The subject has far more notability today than when the original AfD case was decided in 2006. In both cases, WP:NOTADVERTISING has appeared to be a problem, and in the 1st nomination it's possible that the article was blatant spam by someone affiliated with TOMS. However, article has been cleaned up since this AfD case was opened. There are PLENTY of reliable sources that can be used to write this article today, which was likely not the case when the first AfD case went through. It would be silly to end up deleting this article...just make sure we keep NPOV on it. _scootey ^talk 01:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability is established through coverage in reliable sources. Spamminess is an editting concern and aside from blatant advertising, is not grounds for deletion. This article does not fall into the blatant category. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 9 April 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.