Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Active

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 Speedy Delete, G5 by User:Sarah. Lenticel ^(talk) 10:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Active

Fails to meet notability among corporations. Its coverage is few and usually discuss about its endorser Angel Locsin rather than the product itself. Starczamora (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not established notability. Clothing label established in 2007. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angel_Locsin#Product_and_endorsements. No established notability but is mentioned in the parent article. I merged some of the text and ref from this article to the parent.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a clothing company thus it must have a wiki article. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As you have contributed a lot of content to the article, do you have any evidence of coverage in reliable sources? Your argument could be interpreted as WP:ILIKEIT which isn't generally taken well in AfD discussions. I've tried to Google it, but haven't come up with any coverage, but I am hoping you would have something. Asserting notability would also be a help! Fraud ^{talk to me} 04:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here its, Website and it has under construction website, making its official. This clothing line is popular in the Philippines same as Folded & Hung ect. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. If you'd compare this to Stuff by Duff, it's not that notable. I'd have to be convinced by extensive coverage other than the "official" website. –Howard the Duck 05:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - All companies has a right to have its wikipedia article as long as it has a source, website, ect. to proved that the company really exist. Now if you talking about, notability, Im pretty sure that Angel Active is one of the most popular clothin line in the country. I suggest to keep this article. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: No. If the company exists, it doesn't mean it should automatically have/deserve a Wikipedia article. Anyway, I asked a random DOTA kid at the internet cafe to give me 3 local apparels. He gave Bench and Penshoppe. The kid didn't know about "Angel Active." You'd have to cite a newspaper article not coming from a press release to say that this is true. –Howard the Duck 11:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy ~~delete~~ deactivate it as blatant advertising. Anyway, is the author an employee of Angel Locsin? If so, then this one has got a serious conflict of interest. Alexius08 (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He/ She actually claims to be a "cousin" of Angel Locsin, which has been claimed by a puppet master I know. Starczamora (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes definetely Im proud to a cousin of Angel Locsin. But Admit that Angel Active - is a well-known clothing line apparel in the Philippine does it needs an article in WIkipedia, to help it more known. Just ignore Starczamora because he/she is has a past relationship of this User which what he thinks me because he really miss his boyfriend/girlfriend thats why hes tryin to kiss me and invite me to have a dinner, watch movies and have a shopping. Nek nek mo,asa ka pa. LOL. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is so jologs. Starczamora (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angel Locsin's page as per Lenticel's argument. Additionally, we cannot add every single clothing line (or restaurants) of celebrities, not unless they garnered worthy of notice in the fashion industry. Axxand (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep - It has its own identity, the clothing line has its own notability! This was only been nominated by this immature user to be deleted because he hates Angel Locsin - Angel Active's co-owner and main endorser who'd make the clothing line popular all over the Philippines. Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too have an identity but that does not mean I could have a page in wiki. Axxand (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It's only claim to notability is because of Angel Locsin (i.e., you won't find articles about the clothing line that won't also talk at length about the celebrity too). --seav (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong-Keep - This clothing line is very famous in the Philippines. Yah Angel Locsin made it popular but its popularity is on the top. Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three "Keep" votes from the same user does not make it three votes. It's still counted as one. Starczamora (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont care Mr.Immature. Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 07:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone "immature" for the nth time is...well, I'm not sure if that's the work of a mature person, and I don't understand the point of doing that. There are other ways of addressing your issues with a particular editor, but for a start it may help to be a little more civil. Thanks. --- Tito Pao (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, here's my vote:

Delete or merge. "Angel Active", I think, is not yet up to the level of other brands such as Bench and Penshoppe, which are themselves both notable apparel brands and, arguably, have a strong identity apart from their big-name endorsers. True, Angel Locsin may be notable, but that doesn't mean that anything that has her name on it is automatically notable as well. Notability isn't something that is inherited (or, put it in Tagalog, hindi namamana ang notability). For instance (and these are all extreme examples), the janitor of the White House isn't automatically notable just because of the fact that he works at the White House (unless, say, he took a bullet for the incumbent president in a failed assassination). For another example, the comb, shoes, socks, or underwear of Angel Locsin aren't notable even if its user is a notable person (reminds me of the quote of Teodoro Agoncillo whence he laments that Rizal-mania was so despicable that some ultra-Rizalistas might add a marker on any tree where Rizal might have urinated :P). The subject of a potential article needs to have certain qualities that should make it stand apart and pass the accepted Wikipedia community guidelines for notability. (See WP:NOTABLE for more information about this, in case you haven't taken a look.) "Angel Active" isn't there yet; maybe in two or three years' time, I guess, but not now. However, be that as it may, since from all appearances it's a label that carries Angel Locsin's name, it might be better to retain the information and have it merged to the main Angel Locsin article as a better alternative to outright deletion. At the very least, the information about "Angel Active" would still be there, and until such time that it's ready for its own article--by "ready", I mean it will pass all possibl scrutiny such as the AfD process---creating the article is a simple cut-and-paste operation. --- Tito Pao (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2008 (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.