Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquila Shoes

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aquila Shoes

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Only 2 articles link to this. Fails WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried to save this article but almost every source on the Internet is promotional. Fails WP:NCORP. WWGB (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While article in its current state is certainly not perfect. A routine google search includes enough coverage to satisfy WP:CORP. I've added a couple of these articles as references in relevant locations. IceBergYYC (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: significant coverage provided by The Australian article; and the sources pointed out by IceBergYYC

LibStar is repeatedly nominating articles with clear significant coverage and without properly evaluating sources. Jack4576 (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in the article meets WP:ORGCRIT. The CMO references has good signs but I am not sure of its reliability which doesn't matter at this point unless there are additional ORGCRIT references to be found. The article has interviews and routine announcements which cannot be used to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I appreciate the sources added by IceBergYYC, however I still don't think it meets WP:GNG, as the Australian source is quite short and mainly interview ([https://web.archive.org/web/20230519020643/https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/cashedup-aquila-to-double-store-network/news-story/c108ef8832a4bd44bcb2660795354ab1 Keep per the sources linked by GeebaKhap. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the coverage is enough for mine, additional AFR sources exist such as this one which demonstrates in-depth coverage across multiple years. GeebaKhap (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GeebaKhap: We need multiple reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, and you only have listed one. Do you have any other sources for the company? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 00:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well in addition to the ones already in the article, see below from Proquest's archives. GeebaKhap (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Boot's on the other foot for Nairn" (The Australian, 4 Apr 2016): "Former David Jones chief executive Iain Nairn will make good use of his retail connections after being named the new chairman of men's fashion brand Aquila, which is currently seeking up to $30 million from new investors to fuel a store rollout and growth strategy" (592 words)
"Craftsmanship keeps men looking good" (The Age, 9 Mar 2017, 486 words) - discusses plans for 60th anniversary.

There's also this in-depth profile of the company's founder from an Italian news site:[1] GeebaKhap (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GeebaKhap: Thank you for the source finds. I think between the AFR sources, the ProQuest sources, and the Italian article, there's enough for WP:GNG. I'll change my vote. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cheers! // 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 15:03, 3 June 2023 (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.