Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarks UK

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. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarks UK

Clarks UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about in independent reliable sources. Dead press releases and PR for their package designers are not good enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is not the notable footwear chain. Minor import company with limited coverage is not notable even if the maple syrup market is growing. MLA (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets notability guideline, more sources exist (Telegraph,Wales Online). Peter James (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete instead as I examined the listed sources including above and they are either simply interviews, trivial coverage or anything similar to this that is not equalizing to actual substance. There's simply not enough to suggest a both non-advertorial and then factual article. SwisterTwister talk 19:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The firm may possibly be notable, but the article is an advertisement. As for quality of the references, there is a remarkable similarity in the text between this article and most of the,showing their nature as press releases . DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 4 August 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.