Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daddy Couture

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. Sources provided have been debunked Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy Couture

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

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

paid for spam, non-notable brand, the sources i've removed are completely fake black hat seo sites and what's left are contributor pieces and press releases. A search reveals nothing better. Praxidicae (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Weak Delete - the article could certainly do with some more work but editors have made attempts in recent days to improve the article, and the Forbes piece seems substantial. Gay Star News, QX magazine and Out.com are respected LGBT news outlets. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a contributor piece, this is basically just a mention and not at all coverage, this is almost identical save for a few words to gay star news, which means its probably a press release, but even if not, it's just an announcement and this is just an interview. So 0 coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cardiffbear88's assessment. There are enough RS for this subject to pass notability. --Kbabej (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Prax is spot-on - that Forbes piece is written by a contributor, it is UGC, and is therefore not reliable and confers no notability. The other sources are press releases, soft-soap interviews and passing mentions. This is spam. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Praxidicae. Simply put, WP:CORPDEPTH is not met by press releases and paid-for articles on Forbes. "Forbes", really, considering the reliability of contributor pieces relative to real Forbes content. "Fauxrbes"? Maybe. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More sources found - almost every respectable LGBT news organisation I can find has an editorial piece on this company, plus there are lots of in depth analysis pieces. Here’s a selection: Editorial and interview at New York Fashion Week, analysis in a fashion magazine, editorial in a business magazine, another LGBT website, another business website, another business website, another LGBT website. Yes, there are lots of paid articles but these seem to me to be editorially independent and based on the popularity of the company and its success particularly at New York Fashion Week. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are press releases combined with interviews and not coverage. As for some of your other sources, if you bother to look critically at them, 3 of them are blatantly fake black hat SEO "news" sites and thus unreliable. Ie. bestinau and dailyscanner are both completely fake sites operated by a black hat firm that promotes fake press for their clients. Sites like Elucid Magazine might not be fake but they're certainly not known for editorial oversight nor do they have the level of readership to establish notability for the same reason a local podunk news outlet doesn't establish notability. And this website which is invested in marketing and promoting clients is definitely not a reliable source to establish notability and it's also operated by the same black hat seo firm(s) the first two I pointed out are. Praxidicae (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that certain ones I was unaware were on the black list aside, I would ask you to remain WP:CIVIL. Even placing those aside, there are enough sources here to demonstrate WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:GNG to suggest that readership numbers, niche magazines or local news can’t contribute towards notability, especially when the subject is covered in multiple sources independently. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about my comments was uncivil? And no, you're incorrect, none of the sources you've provided have coverage and in fact, most of the sources you've provided should be blacklisted as they are intentionally deceptive and run by, again, black hat SEO firms. (Since apparently I need to spell it out, my comments about the sources have nothing to do with you, it's about the source and the firms promoting this brand.) As far as Elucid goes, please tell me what their history is wrt editorial oversight and reliability, or perhaps who the author is of this piece? Was it endorsed by their editorial board? Do they have an editorial board? Praxidicae (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiffbear88, GNG isn't what we're discussing here - we're discussing NCORP. Randomly clicking on three of the 'new sources' you found, I saw one which was actually labelled as an advertisement, a passing mention on someone's blog, and an obvious press release republished without so much as a byline. These sources are miles away from meeting the requirements. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit and in digging more into my suspicions about Elucid, we should be blacklisting it at this point rather than considering whether it's readership is relevant. It doesn't bode well when the only identified staff on their website, in this case, their editor in chief, is openly soliciting these deceptive practices on fiverr...(i tried to link but fiverr is blacklisted) Praxidicae (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, I'm inclined to agree with you. I'm not au fait with the blacklisting process, but would support any such suggestion. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK I’ve changed my vote. Praxidicae your tone has not been particularly civil during this exchange and I would ask you to WP:AGF in these discussions. Phrases such as “if you bother to look...”, “Since apparently I need to spell it out...” and “And no, you're incorrect...” demonstrates a needlessly aggressive tone when I’m trying to engage in constructive discussion, and this is not the first time I’ve felt it in your AfD contributions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiffbear88, thanks for being willing to reconsider your position. FWIW, I think Prax could probably have worded a few statements differently in the interests of collegiality. Please recognise though the huge amount of work she does keeping covert spam off our project - that's frustrating work, and frustration sometimes leads to blunt turns of phrase. I'm glad we've all ended up in the same boat. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ; the above discussion takes care of every quasi-useful search result I found. No significant coverage in a reliable secondary source, delete. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2020 (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.