Deletion of Angel Active

Comment: 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABLE)

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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:N)