- 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. SNOW Drmies (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Skyeskyns[edit]
- Skyeskyns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lack of notability as per WP:ORG, WP:COMMERCIAL, and zero coverage beyond their own sites, socials, tourist listings etc. InDimensional (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable for being the only one, broad coverage in the press, and lifestyle publications. I do not know if "The Royal Household" are a customer but HRH The Princess Royal popped in for a cuppa in 2014. I could write more but I am just not interested. 86.136.70.190 (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC):Note:This user has made few other edits on Wikipedia. [reply]
- Are you affiliated with Skyeskyns in some way? InDimensional (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No. 31.51.170.77 (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete zero indication of passing WP:NCORP entirely promotional, a before finds nothing. Theroadislong (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Company information, and facts, for example only one in scotland, and year of incorporation are not promotional. Invalid comment. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete It isn't even close IMO. Regards, Aloha27 talk 18:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As per above comment, and below. Too many similar articles to be considered a valid comment, even if there are a number of similar businesses in Scotland. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Try googling Skyskyns Guardian, Skyeskyns Scotsman, or Skyeskyns New York Times and I think you wil agree your comment is without merit. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, "Google" and the like are not third-party reliable sources to establish notability (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) The claim that "other stuff exists" is addressed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:When_to_use_or_avoid_%22other_stuff_exists%22_arguments Unfortunately, not every organization meets Notability standards. Regards, Aloha27 talk 16:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you have misinterpreted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Please be specific. Same applies to the other stuff.
- Google is not the source but does return links to a number of primary, and secondary sources.
- The most relevant primary sources are at the bottom of this page. Scholarly articles can be found on JSTOR, and patents can be retrieved from the patent office. 86.142.106.90 (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your inputs. https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=31.51.170.77&users=86.136.70.190&users=81.135.8.134&users=86.142.106.90 Aloha27 talk 19:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article was a hijack, but the previous article wasn't notable either so I have tagged that for speedy deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter, if a page is being trolled, its fine to have it noted in the edit history. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- (uninvolved non-admin vote) burn it with fire (the damn spam IPs due to WP:COMMERCIAL. Babysharkboss2 was here!! King Crimson 18:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Company information, and facts, for example only one in scotland, and year of incorporation are not promotional. Invalid comment. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Curious first edits. WP:COI Babysharkboss2 was here!! King Crimson 17:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is now gone to ANI, oh good god. Babysharkboss2 was here!! King Crimson 17:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Admin comment - there has been some moves and other stuff that occurred because this was created in a user sandbox and moved with the sandbox history which had a draft for a band which was not the topic of this article. I've undone the moves. This AFD is about the tannery and the article is about the tannery and not the band. See the article talk page for more details. -- Whpq (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What a mess. Before the article is deleted as it should be, there needs to be a history split, so the version about the band can be debated separately. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that a split is necessary. The original author published the band stuff separately here. -- Whpq (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really sure what the point here is. The content of the edit history is not relevent, and usually consists mostly of vandalism. Wikipedia policy is to not interfere. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I did check the reference. It's clearly not an independent source, and the claims it makes should not be trusted - particularly when there's evidence to the contrary. Maproom (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not a regular AFD participant, but this seems too much like promotion and also fails WP:NCORP. --Cactus.man ✍ 01:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Company information, and facts, for example only one in scotland, and year of incorporation are not promotional, and contribute to family history, and the encyclopedia. Too many similar pages to be considered a valid comment. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As per my replies and adding the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well sourced encyclopedic article that specifically avoids selling or promoting a product. Key references are:
- how do you strike through repetition? 86.142.106.90 (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, blatant advertising, sourcing does not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A number of inexperienced editors have already made the same point. Are you suggesting the business does not exist? 86.142.106.90 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- He most certainly isn't calling this a hoax. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: God almighty this is the definition of a 'short stub'. Doesn't get anywhere close to even getting within sniping distance of suiting GNG. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- yes but chgfkv is a valid criteria for escalation 86.142.106.90 (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Parden? ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Zero evidence of passing WP:NCORP. Had a search for any independent sigcov and nothing much appearing. Very obvious COI meatpuppetery going on in this thread. Qcne (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NCORP is satisfied on all accounts. No idea what the other comment refers to. Specifics please or I will out you. 86.142.106.90 (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. This is getting absurd with the amount of sockpuppetry. An ANI report has been filed for this. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 17:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- tee he he 86.142.106.90 (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Spam all you want. But in the end, I will have the last laugh. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 17:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You laughed slightly late, page protected by Star Mississippi. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE. Absolutely ridiculous stub with zero evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Everything has pretty much been said. Fails WP:NCORP, non-notable. Get it outta here. --My Pants Metal (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was unable to find anything to meet WP:NORG, the Guardian articles and [2] (I presume them) referenced by an IP editor above is a brief mention, From the Scotsman [3] is an opinion peice written by a member of the company, [4] is mostly an interview with direct quotes and The Hearld article [5] is an interview. I couldn't find the NYT article, [6] was the only one that came up, and doesn't mention the company. Many of the arguements for keeping it are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, not establishing that this company is notable. Shaws username . talk . 20:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noting that I've also semi'ed the article for a matching period of time. Will not affect closure in either direction this discussion goes. Star Mississippi 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is the first article I've nominated for AfD, what a learning experience, hope future nominations go smoother than this! InDimensional (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Nothing that can establish notability has been found and I doubt it will. Fails WP:GNG. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 00:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete blatant pure promotional page for a non-notable company. Also their single (unlikely but it's a stretch) claim to notability, that they are the only sheepskin tannery in Scotland, is easily disproven in 10 seconds on Google. Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: One of the most obvious PROMO stubs I have ever laid my eyes upon. DrowssapSMM 14:25, 8 March 2024 (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.