Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative Recreation

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. Consensus that the sources are insufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Recreation

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

Most of the sources are press releases, and this article is clearly a case of WP:ADMASQ. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Don't know. I'm seeing coverage that might constitute depth as described in Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria. Plus there is this funny shoe theft incident. NickCT (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — routine business activity is typical coverage of non-notable corp; article is WP:ADMASQ per nom. Having some of their goods stolen doesn't confer notability. Brianhe (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it seems to pass GNG because of LA Times piece here and profile here. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — the publisher of that second source is listed as "Creative Director, Mosaic Experiential Marketing", a PR company [1]. — Brianhe (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Non-notable and possibly promotional. Ormr2014 | Talk
Keep - References included are independent and significant. Got enough coverage to pass GNG. - Arr4 (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I see only one semi-RS - the LA Times article - although it is only a few paragraphs. I wasn't able to establish bona fides on the of Fashion site. There is a lengthy article there that might show notability, but there are many dozens of fashion sites on the web. The theft is not information about the company that would attest to notability, and should be removed from the article. Other articles are just mentions of the product, not about the company, or are sales sites. It isn't clear to me why so many references are from Philippine business journals for a business based in California, but I assume that the product is manufactured there. LaMona (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where is the significant coverage? Bearian (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2015 (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.