Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birdies (company)

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birdies (company)

[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)

Company does not meet WP:NCORP- claim to notability seems to be that a Duchess was photographed wearing their shoes. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I wrote the page because I kept seeing reliable sources about the founders and the company. Female founded and run American company with more than $10 million in funding and large collaborations. Coverage in many third party, impartial news sources. Hope to see other opinions here. Hailey McAllister (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I initially was skeptical to see e.g. TechCrunch as cites since they allow pretty much anyone to write there. But a review of the articles cited shows most are not pieces by non-staff "contributors," although the Forbes piece is. The remainder of what I looked at (TechCrunch, Insider, Observer, FastCompany, Real Simple) appear to be written by staff journalists or editors. Further, the cites are more than a cursory mention of the company. Coverage is significant, appears in multiple reliable secondary sources, and in sources independent of the subject. Sauzer (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revising to Delete per the convincing research below my post. Sauzer (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is not GNG as indicated above but is WP:NCORP. We require multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is also important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, they are some of the most obvious examples of advertorials you could come across. They fail NCORP guidelines as follows:
- This from Forbes is from the "sites" portion of the website and the community has long ago regarded these references as unreliable and fails WP:RS. In addition, the article is based entirely on an interview with the founders and therefore fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from The Helm is likewise based entirely on an interview with the founders and fails ORGIND.
- This from Norwest is a blog post (fails WP:RS) from one of the investors and therefore fails ORGIND also
- This from Business Insider is a review of the product with zero information about the company - the topic of this article - and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. In addition, this is a review where the "Insider Reviews" team "frequently receive product free of charge" to test and where they receive "a small share of the revenue from the sale" that is made from the links in their article. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- This TechCrunch article (mentioned above as a reason to Keep) is also based entirely on an interview with one of the founders with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This Fast Company reference is based entirely on an interview with Ken Fulk who discusses his collaboration on a "luxury home slipper", fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from the Observer is based on an announcement from the company on a collection to "encourage women to vote". The PR for the launch resulted in numerous similar articles in various publications such as footweatnews, Town and Country magazine, Yahoo Finance and lots more. This is not "Independent Content" and these references all fail WP:ORGIND.
- This from Sportico is entirely based on an announcement of their sponsorship of Angel City FC. Also fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from Town and Country contains zero information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- This from BizJournals is based entirely on an interview with the founder and information provided by the company, fails ORGIND
- This from People contains no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH

Not a single reference comes close to meeting the criteria for establishing notability, the references are simply PR and advertorials, nothing more. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and an extensive research by HighKing above. Once you look at the ref's they don't pass. Kolma8 (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2021 (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.