Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOMS SHOES (2nd nomination)
No doubt that this article has too much self-promotional fluff.  It should be excised of the timeline, advertising copy and other puffery. I've also gone ahead and clarified that that award is not an actual National Design Award, but rather an online popularity contest sponsored by the museum. That being said, the substantial mentions in the http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/lifestyle/319343_tomsshoes12.html ''Seattle Pos-Intelligencer'', http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/24/green-retail-shops-tech-paperplastic08-cx_ls_0724retail.html ''Forbes'', http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/homestyle/03/26/blake.mycoskie.toms.shoes/  ''CNN'', http://postcards.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/10/11/power-point-be-the-change/  ''Fortune', and http://www.style.com/stylefile/2008/06/erotic-boots-that-help-the-underprivileged-all-in-a-days-work-for-toms/ ''Vogue'' definitely provide enough |significant coverage to pass |notability criteria for a company and warrant a keep
— User:CactusWriter, 12:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:ORG (Wikipedia:Notability)