Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloggs.co.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 merge to JD Sports. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 10:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cloggs.co.uk

Cloggs.co.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)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:JussiJankulovski (creator, SPA) with the following rationale "Added sources from Econsultancy and York Press." Neither helps much; all the sources present and all I can find are niche/local, trade journals, or straight press-releases, as well as mentions in passing - primarily about a store opening somewhere. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is enough here for a very short page or possibly just a redirection to a merged JD Sports. I don't think it is so unbelievable that someone might look for information about the brand and ownership, and I think there is enough notability to do that. But agree the press releases and details about store opening are pretty weak. JMWt (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to JD Sports. Not notable enough for a standalone article and clearly WP:ARTSPAM created by single-purpose account. Citobun (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with JD - No evidence of any notability so doesn't really warrant an article IMHO, Better off merged/. –Davey2010^Talk 00:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 24 November 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.