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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OTAA[edit]

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

Not an obviously notable online tie retailer, considerably smaller than Tie Rack. The only obvious news source is the Daily Mail piece, which isn't enough to cement an article with. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching Google News for 'OTAA tie' returns only 2 stories, both of which seem to basically be ads for this business - and the Daily Mail and Huffington Post are generally not considered reliable sources. As these are also the only news sources given in the article, it seems unlikely that anything useful exists (disclaimer: I speedy deleted this article, but it was contested). Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above - David Gerard (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I essentially consider this speedy material, certainly none of it is substantial and there's also no actual significant coverage since the claims and information are either simply puffed or trivial; examining everything finds nothing that wouldn't simply be found at a business listing. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page with a section on "celebrity customers" to boot. Notability is not inherited. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:CORPDEPTH and is essentially a promo page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2016 (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.