Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuddle+kind

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 keep. Tone 14:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cuddle+kind

[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)

he coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. It has some sources, but they are a combination of in-passing and what seems to be very niche, almost blog/SNS-like level of coverage, some of which is part WP:INTERVIEW. The awards received by the company seem relatively niche as well. So, overall, no in-depth, reliable coverage, and not much to support notability. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added more coverage today. Yes, some of the mentions are passing mentions, but the company has really been featured in some major news sources including People magazine, ABC News, Fox5 and other reputable locations. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia but when I read about this doll company, the employment they are offering in Peru, the charitable tie-in with their product and the coverage they are getting both from stars and news sources - I thought they would be Wiki-worthy. All the best, Rainydaysstarrynights (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to have significant coverage, needs improvement but not worthy of deletion. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 09:31, 3 February 2019 (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.