Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advisory Board Crystals

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advisory Board Crystals[edit]

[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)

Reviewed as part of New Page Patrol. This article was originally nominated for DYK, but it ended up being pulled from the main page due to concerns about notability and promotional tone (see discussion here and here). Taking a good look at the sources, I agree with the notability concerns. Most of the sources (both in the article and found through WP:BEFORE) are just announcements of new products, which fail WP:CORPDEPTH and have a highly advertorial tone, complete with prices, online shopping links, and Instagram glamour shots: see [1][2][3][4][5][6], etc. Most of the sources that actually discuss the company in detail are interviews (fails WP:ORGIND): [7] [8] [9]. This one isn't, but I can't find any information on Highsnobiety's editorial policies, and this page does not inspire confidence in their journalistic integrity. The brand is certainly mentioned a lot and perhaps I'm just out of touch with the kids these days and their "streetwear", but I'm not sure there's enough here to pass the high bar of WP:NCORP. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SpicyMilkBoy's thorough analysis. I too fail to see anything that indicates actual independent notability rather than aggressive marketing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the main author of this page, I am in no way associated with the brand - I didn't write it to be PR fluff in any way. In fact I've never even heard of them before I read that the Wikimedia foundation had made a T-shirt with a fashion brand, and it didn't have it's own Wikipedia page. I object to your interpretation that interviews violate WP:ORGRIND - in which said paragraph doesn't once mention interviews directly. An interview is an acceptable secondary source and unless it can be proven that the interviewer has a vested or explicitly stated commercial interest in promoting the interviewee, then I think it should stand as a citation.

I accept that some of the sources used are too commercial and may not be right for Wiki. However, as per my previous arguments, some of the other sources here are from notable media outlets like Pitchfork, iD and Dazed & Confused and even Vogue - who are all respected publications. As SpicyMilkBoy said themselves, it's been 'mentioned' a lot. So, I personally feel this is a worthy topic for a Wiki page. Lastly, I also object to that condescending 'discussion' on the front page error page being used as an argument for deletion. I was more than a bit concerned that a cited and formatted page was called 'rubbish' and then undemocratically removed from DyK without any consultation from the four/five other editors who had previously signed off on it as per due process.

Also one of the links that was posted as advertorial (#5) was literally not selling anything at all - it was documenting that they had produced a one off design for one of the world's biggest rap groups. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 16:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGIND may not mention interviews, but elsewhere on the page it plainly and explicitly excludes them; Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. In a business setting, frequently encountered primary sources include...memoirs or interviews by executives. SpinningSpark 18:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the four sources offered above as particularly notable, the Pitchfork article is not about ABC, it's about Lil Wayne and his merchandising of the Wikipedia tee shirt; The i-D article is not about ABC, it's about the Wikipedia tee shirt; The Dazed site is not about ABC, it's about the Wikipedia tee shirt. In all three the mention of ABC is more or less incidental. The Vogue article is more substantial, but as SpicyMilkBoy says, it is essentially an interview (and it is not even used in the article). It's not enough to get to notability. SpinningSpark 22:57, 5 June 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.