Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arne & Carlos

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. Seems like we have legit claims of notability here. In addition, there is no policy against having articles created in exchange for money (although there are rules about what such editors need to disclose and must not edit) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arne & Carlos

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

Non-notable clothing company that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. As it stands, the article in question suffers from a lack of sourcing, and quick searches by myself turn up nothing that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, nor would they establish the company as having any encyclopedic value. I believe that the fact that this article has not been expanded since 2005 (with the exception of content added by a disclosed paid editor (Talk:Arne & Carlos) speaks as to the notability of this company. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SamHolt6: There is already a discussion underway at the talk page of this article, as I'm sure you've seen. A new draft will be submitted as soon as possible. JacobMW (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not a new version of the article in question is in progress is not pertinent to this Afd. Opinions on deletion can be changed as the article is filled out, but this article is live, and as such must be judged in accordance to Wikipedia's criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full disclosure, Arne & Carlos are a client of my paid editing firm Mister Wiki (WP:AVOIDCOI). I'm still not entirely sure why this article was put into AfD (WP:ATD) since this article was originally a WP:STUB and was in the middle of being expanded, but regardless, I'm here to just make a few points and hope that we can objectively come to a decision on this.

Since the article was in the middle of expansion, I think it should be judged by its draft over at this link instead of this current stub version. In regards to SamHolt6's doubt of it passing WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, the new references are not just trivial mentions of the topic, almost all of them are in-depth coverage / interviews regarding the topic. And FWIW, A&C are published authors and have been on display at museums for their knitting work, passing the guidelines of notability for a WP:AUTHOR. JacobMW (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JacobMW: You never know, perhaps the draft you are working on does fulfill all the necessary criteria. The museum information seems promising. But for now, this Afd is concerning the article as it is. I would recommend that you add the information from you draft to the current article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SamHolt6: Fair enough. Is it okay for me to edit the article directly since I have a WP:COI? It seems we've talked this through, and (obviously, since this article is open to everyone) I have no problem with any corrections or edits that people might want to make after all the content has been added in. JacobMW (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for clarity on whether I should follow Sam's advice and directly implement the draft. User:Jytdog, your thoughts? JacobMW (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles under a deletion discussion are treated kind of like drafts and are obviously being examined, so in this kind of situation I would say that since Sam gave you the greenlight, go ahead and implement your changes. Please be sure to note in the edit note: "paid editor implementing proposal as suggested at WP:Articles for deletion/Arne & Carlos ". (that is black because the WP software won't show a Wikilink to the page the wikilink is on -- it will work in the edit summary) And if anybody reverts a change, please do not re-revert. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks! Will do this now. JacobMW (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog and SamHolt6: Page has been updated with new information. Will let the community decide with this draft now in place. JacobMW (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for paid advertising, and we should not have articles created by paid editing clients.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Johnpacklambert: Entirely understand where you are coming from and your opinion on this. However, this article was a WP:STUB before which is why my firm was hired to expand it. Regardless of it being paid for or not, it was asking to be built with more information which was done. I've already made a case above as to why I believe this is notable. I'd appreciate any constructive feedback as to how I can improve my practices in regards to WP:PAID JacobMW (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My understanding is that as long as this editor discloses that he's a paid client, there's nothing preventing him from adding to this article. I found a lot of material on this company with a Google News search. There's lots of it in Norwegian, but also some in English, and it doesn't have to be in English to be considered notable, correct? It's also the main focus of many of those articles. Srt8 Outta Philly (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See for example Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Conflict_of_interest_guideline, that is something. Correct, sources don´t have to be in english, only WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 23:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think WP:GNG can be satisfied with Aftenposten, NRK and the Independent. [1][2][3]. Possibly the topic should be "designerduon" instead of the company, like in the norwegian WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more: National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design: [4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These people are clearly notable by our standards: the (UK) Independent calls them "knitting rock stars", ABC Australia describes them as "Nordic knitting icons". That is evidence of a level of global notability that far exceeds that of (tens of?) thousands of the sportspeople and local politicians on whom we are happy to have articles. Note: I've again removed the promotional paid-editor content, but have added the references from that version to the current one; while I fully agree with Johnpacklambert that (in almost every case) articles created by paid editors should simply be nuked as promotion, that isn't the case here – it was a stub before and is one again, though I've marginally enlarged it. I hope that other volunteer editors, preferably with fluency in Scandinavian languages, will expand it further. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2017 (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.