Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Cruz Couture (2nd nomination)

Sebastian Cruz Couture

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Sebastian Cruz Couture
• Articles for deletion/Sebastian Cruz Couture (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Sebastian Cruz Couture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

As you can see from this article's history, I have been quietly looking at the references. While they are different enough to those in the article deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Cruz Couture to avoid outright WP:G4 deletion, it would appear to me the substantial issues have remained the same

• repeated additions of purported references from press releases, gossip pages, and passing mentions - not in themselves a reason for deletion, but a reason to be wary of those references
• quite simply this article fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and quite possibly other tests for inclusion as a Wikipedia article

As always, I am happy to to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - you are not wrong, this is just a little bit more subtle but still just an advertisement. Nothing here makes for WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - the article is clearly different from the content that was deleted in the past. There is no intent here for advertising I put it as an US Company Stubs because I know it needs a lot of improvement in the future. Boyjords2020 (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - not sure why my comment was deleted but as I said before, the company has had an impact and ir peer admired...meeting the crieria. AND I do find some more substantial references that can be added.Deefieldian (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No reliable sources talk about this brand beyond a mention in passing. Mottezen (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment @Mottezen As I have said it was a company stubs, there are many companies that still here on wikipedia. If you tried to search Sebastian Cruz Couture social media accounts they are verified https://web.facebook.com/ThePocketSquareIndustry/, https://www.pinterest.ph/sebastiancruzcouture/ and there are almost 450k IG followers Boyjords2020 (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete possible undisclosed paid-for-spam with no significant coverage in reliable sources. GSS ^💬 11:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - Lots of sources available. Story is consistent across all sources. Social media following is stronger compared to similar brands that started around the same time. Brand has dressed big names, which proves notability. I see the brand constantly on The Masked Singer Nick Cannon. Celebrity stylist don't throw random brands on A-listers. Amano225 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC) — Amano225 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment @Mottezen To suggest "Possible & Paid-For-Spam" regarding the sources available suggests you did not read the full features on Sebastian Cruz Couture ; sources in which wikipedia deems reliable. The author of this page stated it was a stub and was planning to work on it. I can see some press coming across as promotion; news is always promoting something... But the content being provided in this stub is not, nor are the citations. Amano225 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - I am in the area of the subject and they are very popular. I am surprised they don't have more press frankly. I agree that to accuse "Possible & Paid-For-Spam" by GSS is innappropriate but if you look at his talk page and contribs he seems to accuse many of this unsubstatiated claim.71.229.114.204 (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Boyjords2020. Mottezen (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @Mottezen I am sorry you feel this way and are now under the assumption I am affiliated with other Wikipedia profiles commenting here. I am truly sorry, but unfortunately its not the case. For me, this further proves my point on your original comment. One cannot assume that because multiple people commented on a similar point, which does not side with your POV doesn't mean they are both affiliated. I am not one to personally bash people or better yet respond emotionally. I tend to stay more factual. In this case, this specific point thread my comments I can all back up. Thank you. No disrespect at all meant, and none taken. I have been following this page for some time now. That is all. Doesn't mean anything else. Amano225 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment since this AfD is being bludgeoned just like the first AfD, it is appropriate to review the sources against Wikipedia's requirement. These are that there should be multiple, reliable and independent sources with significant coverage that establish notability.

Source 1 - from techbullion - very clearly a puff piece almost certainly based on a press release or a paid advertorial - affiliated and not reliable

Source 2 - own web site - neither reliable nor independent

Source 3 - YouTube - social media not acceptable for demonstrating notability

Source 4 - images with passing mentions - no discussion

Source 5 - images and passing mention

Source 7 - Facebook - Social media not acceptable for establishing notability

Source 8 - Picture spread with passing mention - unreliable source

Source 9 - Twitter - Social media - not an acceptable source no matter how verified

Source 10 - lifestyle piece with a passing mention

The inescapable conclusion is that nothing here establishes notability - not a single source - let alone the multiple, reliable and independent sources with significant coverage that are required.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @Velella I really appreciate you finally taking the stance of wanting to aid in the efforts of making this stub better. That said, lets go ahead and share these sources so that the author can build a better page, or maybe others can assist if interested in constructing instead of destructing? Here are a few I have found, and most are full features. To say the sources are promotional would be puff as you mention it. In that case, everything is promotional in this world. That said, if the author is not citing promotional content then it should be fine. Some of the sources below may not be under wikipedia eyes reliable but enough to showcase notability. If this doesn't, I don't know what does in the fashion industry.

https://hauteliving.com/2021/01/sebastian-cruz-couture-luxury-fashion-forerunner-watch-2021/693913/

https://www.laweekly.com/sebastian-cruz-couture-launches-its-valentines-day-campaign/

https://www.jpost.com/special-content/how-sebastian-cruz-couture-became-a-global-luxury-fashion-brand-657515

https://foxinterviewer.com/business/sebastian-cruz-couture-emerges-as-a-luxury-fast-fashion-supernova/

https://fashionweekdaily.com/sebastian-cruz-couture-unveils-spring-summer-2021-collection/

https://techbullion.com/from-pocket-squares-to-luxury-fashion-sebastian-cruz-couture-expands-its-products-range/

https://signalscv.com/2021/01/sebastian-cruz-couture-the-making-of-a-luxury-brand-from-pocket-squares-to-debonair-head-to-toe-suits/

https://vman.com/article/a-glimpse-of-sebastian-cruz-couture-pre-fall-menswear-collection-2021/

https://www.ibtimes.com/look-inside-fashion-industry-2939742

http://www.eurasianvogue.com/latest-stories/-gift-ideas-for-chinese-valentines-day

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6698677/Olivia-Munn-cuts-sleek-figure-wearing-blue-velvet-suit-Starz-TCA-Red-Carpet-event.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us?refurl=%2fen-us%2fnews%2fother%2f2019-pre-grammy-gala-and-salute-to-industry-icons-presented-by-the-recording-academy-and-clive-davis%2fss-BBTofYs

https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/life/music/2019/02/10/clive-davis-pre-grammys-gala-2019-see-all-celebrity-attendees/2829547002/

https://www.tmz.com/2019/02/11/julian-edelman-russell-wilson-chris-bosh-grammys/

https://people.com/music/grammys-2019-preparties-photos/#ciara-russell-wilson

https://hollywoodlife.com/2019/02/11/future-bails-clive-davis-grammys-party-performance-ciara-russell-wilson-arrive/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/tvshowbiz/video-1859776/Video-Ciara-Russell-Wilson-Pre-Grammy-Gala-2019.html

https://www.eonline.com/photos/26960/clive-davis-pre-grammy-gala-2019

https://www.essence.com/how-to/style-your-guy-essence-live-video/

https://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/photo-gallery/45769934/image/45769937/Ciara-Russell-Wilson

https://www.esquireme.com/content/20656-best-dressed-2017-mike-hardie Amano225 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I see a lot of SIGCOV here, but most of it is marked as written by the same author, "DN MEDIA NETWORK". What do we make of that? Mottezen (talk) 07:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @Mottezen I have no choice but to assume in this case this is simply a person that decided to write about the brand. In fashion I see this all the time on many of the publications. Sometimes they use profiles that have a brand name to feature other brands and other times they use an author profile. When its obvious and can be concluded that its a promotional posts is when it says "sponsored" That's really the only time that I can personal be inclined to say that its promotional in the sense that others may suggest. Besides this, when a brand started with creating a product that had a utility aspect to it, in a market that is hard to penetrate, with a solid social media following you will have networks talking about it. Some of the content can come across as promotional because they are promoting whatever the subject is and other content may not. Going back to the point here, as long as the author is taking pieces of the story and trying to design a foundation on Wikipedia that is non promotional using sources that are considered to be credible sites he/she should be given a fair chance. If the page was setup as a stub that is all I personally am suggesting. Given a fair shot just like all of us have been given at one point or another in our lives. Amano225 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. The article is likely paid-for spam; many of the sources provided above certainly are, and those that aren't don't constitute significant coverage by any stretch of the imagination. Any recreation of this should be vetted through AfC before going to mainspace. To prevent further bludgeoning by the new users who seem to have magically found their way to this AfD, here's a breakdown of the sources above:

Source analysis

Hauteliving: Written in partnership with DN News Desk – paid-for spam Laweekly: *Brand Partner Content* – paid-for spam Jpost: Jpost "special content" is sponsored – paid-for spam Foxinterviewer: DN News Desk – paid-for spam Fashionweekdaily: Presented by: DN News Desk – paid-for spam Techbullion: Contains gems like The brand now educates, inspires, and empowers people. and The label houses all luxury items from their signature pocket squares to detailed designer suits. The customers enjoy the overall brand experience. “We love how their collection improvises and maximizes our wardrobe,” shares a trusted customer. Their look books have received massive applause. The looks are kept in trend with the season and attest fashion trends. The youth particularly enjoys the sensuousness of the outfits. Either paid-for spam or other conflict of interest. Signalscv: No byline, gems like Sebastian Cruz Couture has been the birthplace of countless trend-setting designs and styles in menswear fashion and regular releases despite challenges such as the recent pandemic. They have maintained a profit margin while giving their clients what they want and have worked tirelessly to ensure that each item is handcrafted to perfection. – paid-for spam. Vman: No byline, no indication of editorial oversight – unreliable Ibtimes: No clear byline, IBT does "sponsored content" and is of dubious reliability more generally. Eurasianvogue: No byline, not coverage. Dailymail: Deprecated source MSN: Link not working USA today: Does not contain the words "Sebastian", "Cruz" or "Couture" TMZ: Unreliable, does not contain the words "Sebastian", "Cruz" or "Couture" People: Slideshow, not coverage Hollywoodlife: Does not contain the words "Sebastian", "Cruz" or "Couture" Dailymail 2: Deprecated Eonline: Passing mention Essence: Passing mention Popsugar: Does not contain the words "Sebastian", "Cruz" or "Couture" Esquireme: Passing mention

--Blablubbs|talk 13:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @Blablubbs Love the way you broke this down. The only issue I have is mainly on your opening. "likely" & "certainly" Likely cannot be proven and certainly would require proof that one person paid the other to post about a specific topic. That I can certainly guarantee cannot be proven. Those sites with their contributors would get into a big legal mess if that was the case. I revert back to @Boyjords2020 wanting to work on this as a stub. Why not allow someone to opportunity to do so? If the issue was that this Wikipedia page was promotional in its style my arguments would 100% be otherwise. Not the case here. That the only fact we are discussing here. Amano225 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Amano225, if you can point me to literally anything at all that suggests DN News Desk is anything approaching a reliable publication organ with editorial oversight that does anything else than write Black Hat SEO Spam articles for dodgy "news" sites, I'll reconsider. Until then, I see something that looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck and will treat it as such. --Blablubbs|talk 14:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• delete paid for spam about a non-notable company (and likely created by a long term UPE farm, see Ross kramerov.) The sources are utterly unconvincing and should be blacklisted since they're all paid for spam (at least the ones that actually discuss SCC in any detail.) CUPIDICAE💕 15:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @HighKing The company and Co-Founders have full articles coming out on Forbes, Entrepreneur, INC and several other big media channels within the next 4-6 weeks. This is why @Boyjords2020 is requesting to work on this as a stub. Why not allow someone to opportunity to do so? Give it a timeline, and allow people to execute what they intended to. If the dispute was about the tone of the current stub that would be great, but stating that the current sources are promotional is simply an opinion. I personally know for a fact that the history shared is 100% a fact, and therefore credible. In addition, the brand re-engineered a machine to mimic the same hand-crochet movement so they could actually increase their capacity in the early days. That is in fact encyclopedic. Maybe the @Boyjords2020 has not prioritized that yet but a bit of research can confirm this. @Blablubbs In regards to DN News Desk I have no idea who they are. If we take your same "duck analogy" yet make it more factual and less about perception I can say that the sources being used are considered to be credible by wikipedia. If I cannot rely on that then I cannot rely on the waiter when I order duck from the menu... If I cannot trust that, then we may as well dispute the Wikipedia reliable source page as a whole since apparently now everyone is getting paid for spam... We can say everything is... Or we can say otherwise... Bottom line, cant say its a duck until proven. Impossible to prove it in this case; only assume. Amano225 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  Amano225, the onus is on you to establish that the sources you are trying to use to establish notability are reliable. It's impossible to prove a negative. We cannot just assume a source is good to use just because we know nothing about it. Blablubbs|talk 02:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  Also, how do you know that The company and Co-Founders have full articles coming out on Forbes, Entrepreneur, INC and several other big media channels within the next 4-6 weeks.? Blablubbs|talk 03:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Blablubbs Thanks for your reply. I am not the author of the page in question. If I was, trust me I would do anything in my power to prove to you what is needed for you to change your POV in regards to the "account/person" that shared content about the brand. Content that was featured in credible wikipedia sources. I am definitely not disagreeing with you that there are website for sure that have false information shared about a brand, but when the same story is shared and is consistent across all web (in this case)about the brand it has to start becoming the reality. All these articles/features have the brand & brand co-founders tagged in it. They know, we know, we have to approve everything for the most part that is shared about our brand; which is how I stumbled upon this page. I have not touched this article nor influenced it in any way shape or form, just watched it slowly being attacked for the points shared above. I can 100% tell you as the Co-Founder of the brand Cesar R. Cruz the content on these sources is factual and I did not pay for it. We are approached by many channels that want to talk about us. We sometimes reply back and share our story or specifics about certain topics we have experience in (like we did with many of these sources). The interviews that were done by Forbes, Entrepreneur, and INC has content that further backs everything shared here and in the stub. In addition, it has content that will take the page out of stub status. These organic full features take often times years. For us, it all starts with an introduction, and the editor stays in touch/follows the brand and if it becomes notable enough they write about it & aid in telling the story. That's how it has been for us. Sometimes we do not have control of all the features that come out of the ones we are aware of. Many do share the content and share the images without you knowing. From my understanding, and after really looking at everything shared on the page they are all verifiable, and the author of this page (and to clarify I have no affiliation with what so ever) did not make it promotional in any way. I am a huge fan of seeing content shared on sites that are fully targeted to the reader. Wikipedia for me is not a promotional area, instead a place where people can educate themselves on certain topics. On a personal note, I will never forget when we started this brand with the vision of making handmade/hand crochet pocket squares in the U.S.A. That we did, the issue is that it would take us 45 minutes to make each one. We capped out at making 300 pocket squares per week and at that point there was no other way but to innovate. I constantly asked my labor partners if there was a machine that could help us to accelerate the process. I kept on getting knows. Eventually we researched and found a company in Miami, FL that sold vintage machines. This crazy Russian mechanic (my wife & co-founder Natasha is also Russian so connected with him) was working at that shop and was able to modify a machine to mimic the same movement we needed to make the crochet border on our pocket squares even better. It did not make the process fully automated, as all corners have to be finished by hand but it allowed us to make 25 pocket squares per hour instead of 1 every 45 min. Now we have several machines and continue to make them all in Miami :) That my friend is not promotional material. That is Educational, Inspirational, and simply Entrepreneurship. I know I have diverted a bit from what was in question, but even what was originally in question took another turn. I ask to everyone reading this to allow the author of this page a fair shot. I believe he has done a good job at creating the stub, and had not shared anything that is not true. I encourage others to share content as long as it is factual and non promotional. We do not see Wikipedia as promotional page in any way what so ever. I am sure you can verify my IP address as the co-founder of the brand based on location :) I thank you all for your time. Amano225 (talk)