Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Brands

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. Sandstein 23:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Brands

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

Promotional article on a ocmpany that falls well below WP:CORP. Sources are all churnalism and nothing obvious to improve on them, though the search is a mess because the name is actually rather generic. Created and lovingly maintained by a probable paid editor. Guy (Help!) 01:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I originally authored two articles for subsidiary websites of this company of which I am a reader, and both were deleted on notability grounds. I wrote this article for the company as a whole in an effort to merge information together rather than having it deleted, and because the company as a whole is more notable than its individual web properties (WP:DOM). I would like to point out that some meaningful sources were removed from this article by User:JzG, the person who put it up for deletion, as he cleaned out content from the article. I would encourage anyone considering this article for deletion to consider restoring the content this editor removed as it adds to the case to keep the article. I will not do this myself out of respect for the community consensus process. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 07:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Steevven1 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage and no independent coverage of the company. Fails WP:ORGIND. scope_creep (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To state that there is "no independent coverage" is a bit dishonest, since there is a newspaper article from The Gainesville Sun cited with this company and its owner as the sole topic of coverage. There were some less important sources cited before, but they have been removed by the editor who put this article up for deletion. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 04:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. A good faith search turned up no viable information that met WP:SIGCOV.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The following are independent sources who have written about this company and its subsidiary websites: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Additionally, a Google search for any of the subsidiary sites yields many hits from notable sources. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 18:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Steevven1 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Usualy I assume Good faith, but what you say above is either a) outright deceptive, or b) a complete failure to understand WP:RS. Third link does not even mention the article subject. PRnewswire? Come on. The |Gainsville biz report site has a handy button for submitting your stories in their masthead. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sketchy sourcing in article and in a general search. Possible promotional effort, see COIN discussion.104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable independent sources. Does not meet WP:CORP. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again, this article might deserve deletion. I can accept that premise. But Wikipedia editors at AfD need to stop with the hyperbole. There is definitively at least one reliable, independent source on this article: The Gainesville Sun. I don't understand how someone could say that there are "none." Thank you for your input and contribution though. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 14:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that is clearly based on a press release, so does not qualify as independent. I've placed dozens of similar articles. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely zero indications of notability, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotions and is not a yellow pages. Fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:23, 4 March 2018 (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.