Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThirdLove

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThirdLove

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

This article about an underwear company was created by an undisclosed, one-purpose CoI account. The first version was speedily deleted because of copyright issues. The present version avoids these, but still reads like an advertisement. I think the company fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Double checking their contributions, they did disclose here. I missed that when approving from AfC so will add a note to the talk page now. However, I did check for neutrality when I reviewed the page so the COI notice would not be necessary. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I remember the first version as well, having reviewed it myself, and I agree that this company fundamentally does not meet our criteria for inclusion, with the sources merely being regurgitated press releases. Add in the UPE issues, and this is a solid delete for me. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Note that I am the one who actually moved this from AfC to the mainspace. The original version was declined for reading like an advertisement and rightfully so. The resubmitted version had removed quite a bit of the promotional copy. I also did some cleanup on the page before approving it, including removing a Forbes reference from a contributor as opposed to staff writer. I don't see issues with advertising as it basically talks about the company history. I conducted WP:BEFORE prior to moving it live and there are many references which qualify including four book references, including one that is a case study. There is also this from a Forbes staff writer (note that I did not include the dozen or so other Forbes articles written by contributors), Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Harvard Business Review, Washington Post, Fox News, Shape, Fortune, Fast Company (one of several), and Today.com. I am also not including the many you will find from the Business Insider and many local publications. I realize that many companies have good PR departments, but not this good as there are hundreds of references that can be used for the article. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot believe what i have had to go through to contribute to Wikipedia. I am not a paid editor and have followed all the rules and yet still get attacked. I have been been made fun of by an administrator and then jumped through hoops just to have someone look at the draft. Now it is going to be deleted because I didnt disclose who i am? Well i did disclose who i am and an administrator helped me to move the page for review. You can do a Google search on this bra (not underware) company and see there are refernves that i didnt even use like the ones pointed out by the user above. I feel the company is notable and I am just shocked at what I have had to go through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkroid (talk • contribs) 06:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the coverage provided by CNMall41 is clearly sufficient to pass WP:CORP. The NYT and WashPo articles in particular, do not appear to be linked to press releases. It may require clean up, but that's not what AFD is for, any it's definitely not bad enough to TNT. SmartSE (talk) 11:02, 8 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.