Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finery (company) (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) Yash ! 17:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finery (company)

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

Currently a non-notable fashion label with very limited retail presence. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Shritwod (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep. This was a SNOW Keep only a month ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finery (company). Plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. See, for starters, This list on the article's talk page. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll confess that I didn't see the first AfD, but the reference list is thin in my opinion. It largely looks like PR filler picked up by these publications, there seems to be little of susbtance with this company. Shritwod (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects are not judged on their notability by the reference list of a given article. If you do not know that then you should not be nominating articles for AfD. Softlavender (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you still haven't come up with a reason why this should merit an entry in Wikipedia. It has no online stores, turnover is just £5m and all the press seems to be very little more than PR fluff, as is this article. Obviously you think this startup is important, and maybe it will be. But having a good PR department is not a good reason to have an article about your company. Shritwod (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As was amply demonstrated in the first AfD, it easily meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Softlavender (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep Newish but well known label in the UK http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/fashion/548395/finery-london.html Advertising nationally. SatansFeminist (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again – WP:CORPDEPTH pass.

Karen Dacre (10 November 2015). "Don your Finery: we meet the high-street heroines who called time on fast fashion". Evening Standard. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
"Finery London, An Affordable, Zara-Like Store, Is Definitely Going To Be A Staple In My Wardrobe". Bustle. Retrieved 17 January 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Aude Lagorce (3 February 2015). "New British Label Finery London Makes Affordable Look Good". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
"Finery: The label for women who have grown out of topshop and asos". The Australian. Retrieved 17 January 2016. (subscription required)
"Finery London created by former Topshop and ASOS designers lands in Australia". Daily Mail. 30 March 2015. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
"Shopping Fix: Our Edit Of The Best Pieces From Finery London". Grazia Daily. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
"Finery London Launches This Week & Grazia Readers Get A Discount, Hurrah!". Grazia Daily. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
Leaper, Caroline. "Finery London". Marie Claire. Retrieved 17 January 2016.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Withdraw~~ - my interpretation of what is notable coverage is clearly at odds with the other editors here. I personally don't think that recycled PR guff makes a reliable news story, but I feel the weight of opinion is against me. Since I think this is likely to go "Keep" despite my arguments, I hereby withdraw the AfD. Shritwod (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC) Actually, it turns out I am not alone so I go back to Delete.[reply]

I have removed bold from the word "delete" in the comment above by the nominator, because this could be misunderstood as a new !vote. The nomination itself is the !vote. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are all news reports about the company. Learn what a primary source is, and try treating news reports as secondary sources in academic writing, before you vote to keep an article based on newspaper articles like these. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I provided above are bylined news articles that are secondary sources. The articles are not written by people affiliated with the company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It just looks like filler based on press releases to me, and therefore not independent of the source. Shritwod (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are labeled "press release" wherever they occur in news media. Bylined articles are written by the author indicated. Significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject is significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Softlavender (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was just AfDed and passed unanimously as a Keep only a month ago: I am pinging all the editors who !voted in that AfD: Meatsgains, Borock, BabbaQ, Artw, Joseph2302. Notability is not temporary. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep same as last time. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see comments from last time. Artw (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for same reason as I argued in the last AfD. The page lacks references but the "Further readings" and "External links" covering the subject could be worked into the article. Meatsgains (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2016 (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.