Talk:Von Dutch

Founder?

Kenny Howard aka Von Dutch really did not start the Von Dutch company. His name was sold after his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.80 (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

Perhaps someone wants to explain how it is name after him, at the moment it makes a lot less sense than it could without viewing his wikipedia page. His refers to the guy it's named after who's name I forgot and would check if my computer was working better and so I could go to the article faster.

Now going to the website yields an unrelated nginx wesite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.0.231 (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Check Neutrality Nomination

I have nominated this article to be checked for its Neutrality. This is being done in conjunction with suspicious behavior by user:AkankshaG who is an executive for Ciplex, who does promotional marketing and web design on behalf of clients. It is not known if Von Dutch is a client of theirs, but it doesn't hurt to review. Search wp:ANI for ref. Phearson (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and tagged it for speedy Del. Sources are PR links and seems to be corporate vanity. Phearson (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the tags, as I think this article needs proper consideration. In my opinion, the subject is notable, however, I wouldn't object if you nominate the article for deletion via AfD. The process should be transparent. Which part of the article do you consider to have not neutral statements? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this was tagged inappropriately, being now that I see that its not exactly promotional in nature. However, its not the RS im worried about, but the article itself lacks any information about the company. It just gives brief information about who owns it and who it was named after. Its just not notable. I'll take you up on the offer though of an AfD. Phearson (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not a new Nostradamus, but I guess the article would be speedily kept. It is waiting for someone interested and competent in this area. Yes, you are right, the article is in a pretty poor shape as it is now. However, deletion is not a good solution in this case. Just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right on suggesting waiting for someone interested in editing it. I'm not particularly interested in editing myself, but I might come back to this later. Phearson (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Behind the Scene Tumult ??

This section has only one cite for any of the info it presents. As such, I thought to delete the whole thing per Wiki standards since it has the potential to be considered libelous. I thought better of it and decided to voice my concern here so someone can do the work of finding an acceptable source for what now appears to be at best gossip. THX1136 (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)