Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Fluevog

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 12:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Fluevog

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

I found this, this, this and this but I'm still not entirely sure of convincingly better notability and improvement. Pinging Agent 86, Dravecky, Debresser, Bearcat, John Stephen Dwyer and author Zackhyde. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - shoes, shoes, and more shoes, reads like an ad for his cobbler business. non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This AfD doesn't really provide much reason to delete the article; moreover, the links posted by the nominator indicate notability, such as being a featured part of stories in the Toronto Star and New York Magazine. A Google Books search also shows significant mentions in books on design and retailing. John Fluevog also has an entry in The Canadian Encyclopedia. The article should be flagged for improvement, not deletion. Agent 86 (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fluevog is one of the most famous shoe designers in the world, and lots of reliable source coverage of him does exist. The article definitely needs referencing improvement, but the notability and sourceability are there. Keep and flag for cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Typical of SwisterTwister's lazy rapid-fire AFD noms where their "argument" is basically to just dump a link to Google search results so it looks like they actually did a search for sources beforehand (which this particular nomination kinda disproves, as if they had actually done a proper look at the results they would've seen that this was NOT getting deleted). Sometimes their noms are valid, but then things like this come up and make the nominator look really bad. Sorry, I've raised this concern in other AFDs much more politely, but given that SwisterTwister rarely seems to come back to AFDs after nomming, I may as well say exactly what I think. Mabalu (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this could be a way of using AFD to get problem articles cleaned up, but I was under the impression that AFD as cleanup is not seen as acceptable - again, surprisingly non-great AFD behaviour from a long-established and generally reputable editor. Mabalu (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very famous, major designer and shoe industry figure. As someone with 30+ years as a shoe store employee and owner I can state with authority that this is someone with substantial, multiple pieces of published coverage of presumed reliability in Footwear News and other trade publications. Moreover, this is a person who has crossed over as a public figure to some extent. If he got squished by a taxi tomorrow there would be an obit in the New York Times... Carrite (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few pieces from FN (a sibling publication of Women's Wear Daily): "5 Questions for John Fluevog" (July 2013); "Celebrating with John Fluevog and Dr. Martens" (June 2010); "Fluevog to Be Honored By Canada's Two-Ten" (Jan. 2012) — Two-Ten being a major shoe industry philanthropy. Bear in mind that FN has not put digitized early issues online yet, there are probably half a dozen more such stories they've done, without touching Footwear Plus or any other trade publication. This is an easy GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stacked a few sources on the bottom of the article in case anyone wants to improve it in the future. Obviously plenty of stuff for a GNG pass, including NY Times and Vancouver Sun. Carrite (talk) 22:03, 28 October 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.