Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lugz

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lugz

[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)

dubious notability. Can find virtually no coverage by reliable sources, seems to exist only to promote the subject FASTILY 07:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and New York. AllyD (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The WSJ piece is RS and not a passing mention. Reference 10 might be as well, I don't know about that publisher. So the brand has attracted some attention and coverage that isn't purely promotional. However, most of the sources cited are either non-RS (Wordpress) or trivial. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For those who are old enough to remember the 90's these things were a household-name-ubiquitous part of hip-hop and pop culture (at least Eminem thought so as does Complex which calls them an "iconic" brand), and there really shouldn't be a question about notability.

Personal testimony aside, the WSJ story and multiple others combine to meet SIRS. A quick Google News search (supposedly a prerequisite for this deletion discussion) shows that they're still an active and high visibility brand today with regular media coverage and shouldn't have been nominated. WilsonP NYC (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a pretty comprehensive chapter in International Directory of Company Histories about the parent company, Jack Schwartz Shoes, Inc.,[1] which also owns British Knights. Perhaps the two brands can redirect to a new article about the parent. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable with its high-profile collaborations with famous figures in music, sports, and entertainment. kind of cultural phenomenon. --Assirian cat (talk) 12:56, 10 October 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.