Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOMS SHOES

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TOMS SHOES

Nothing but advertising. Even if their hearts are pure, this is still pure spam. My vote is Delete Dipics 21:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Charity or otherwise, no assertion of notability, fails WP:V & WP:RS. -- Scientizzle 21:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see why a company thats helping children who and heart and sole rest purly in bettering the lives of under privleged children should be deleted— Preceding unsigned comment added by TOMS SHOES (talk • contribs)

Comment, there are certain notability and verifiability guidelines (see links provided earlier) that Wikipedia articles should follow. The nomination for article deletion is no reflection on the value or work of the subject, but rather a discussion as to whether the article is appropriate for inclusion under Wikipedia guidelines. -- H·G (^words/_works) 23:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an extremely worthy cause and well intentioned solicitation for donations that lacks any encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not an advertising service no matter how worhty the cause.--Nick Y. 22:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, as all above state, the intentions don't outweigh WP:SPAM and WP:CORP on Wikipedia. -- H·G (^words/_works) 23:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete non-profit or not, this is still an ad and should be deleted post-haste. Danny Lilithborne 00:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Don't let the "free shoes for kids" thing fool you. He sells one pair and he gives one away. Shoes have about a billion percent markup. Especially ones like his overpriced-cheap shoes. If he is giving 3% of his income I would be shocked. None of this matters except on a honesty level (it is obvious to me that he is in it for the profit, not for the charity. The charity thing is a sales pitch.) Even if he were an honest non-profit though, my vote would be the same. Beaner1 11:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billion dollar mark up have you seen how cheap thes shoes are. TOMS is world renound phenomenon have you seen its recent press i truly think this is something people should be able to find more out about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.178.120.121 (talk • contribs)

Comment That's billion percent, not dollar. And, I have seen the shoes. He is selling a pair of shoes for $38 that would wholesale for about $2 if that much. I have seen similar shoes RETAILING for under $5. The company BRAGS about the fact that these shoes are based on the type of shoe that dirt-poor farmers wear in South America. Just how much do you really think that they wholesale for? Plus, the important part, there is no part of WP:CORP that this company comes even close to meeting. Beaner1 03:06, 18 July 2006 (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.