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 based on AfD discussion. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of sock manufacturers[edit]

List of sock manufacturers (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)

Non-notable list lacking any sources Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, but not for the nominator's reasons. Unless something more than the manufacturers' names is included, it's really just a knockoff of Category:Hosiery brands (or subcategory, if there are companies that make only socks). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm less than enthusiastic about this, but what makes this argument not a WP:NOTDUP scenario? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Pls see below; Original comment: per WP:PROMO, at least where Injinji is concerned. Note the prominent photo with the logo showing. The Injinji article is currently at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Injinji. The same editor Special:Contributions/PlaneDesigner created both pages, so the purpose was most likely to prop up the main article. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I removed the two entries without articles and the image. For something to be deleted on promotional grounds it should really be more than a matter of removing an entry or two and an image (or almost every list would have periods of time when it would qualify for deletion). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Socks. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. I have added some sources to the article for starters. Also, this article is not promotional, and has no promotional tone whatsoever. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• keep per northamerica Pwolit iets (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak Keep - Very weak keep. Should be renamed List of hosiery brands, though, and added to, but it seems like a meh navigational page (most "list of [product category] brands"). There are plenty of sources for lists of sock/hosiery brands to justify WP:LISTN. Not redundant to the category per WP:NOTDUP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Leaning Delete -- the PROMO issues have been addressed, but it still seems redundant to Category:Hosiery brands. Since the main contributor was most likely a COI editor,I'm not sure who would maintain or expand the list. The category seems sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Check out WP:NOTDUP; categories and lists are considered to be complementary, rather than redundant. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[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.