Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop & Suki

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pop & Suki[edit]

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

New fashion shop, launched three weeks ago by model Suki Waterhouse and her friend. It can't inherit their notability (WP:INHERITORG) and it's too new to be notable yet. Only sources are announcements about the launch. Yintan 05:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another fashion store. Wikipedia is not a directory.--Rpclod (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced to significant coverage in Elle, W Magazine, Paper, and even Vogue. Those are all big-name, established, independent, reliable sources for fashion accessories. That's enough to establish notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, or at very least merge (see below). Definitely has significant coverage, but some of the articles are really shallow in content (Elle, NY Times). Others are more about "Pop" or "Suki" or both but not their fashion brand explicitly. And then some, such as the Vogue article, have depth on the company. It isn't worth deleting outright but there is a question of whether the company would be better covered in one of the designer's articles. As for now, I see enough sources to write at least a small article, but a merge might be a consideration if no more coverage is to come. czar 02:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the Vogue source is the best coverage, there isn't enough. Not only is it not in depth--it's basically an advertorial for their handbag. DGG ( talk ) 10:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and the sources do not cover the topic in depth and rely on PRIMARY sources for facts. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Vogue is the best coverage, it doesn't mean it's the ONLY coverage. Vogue and The Sunday Times go into depth on the company.[1][2]. And W Magazine and Refinery 29 go in depth on their main product, the camera bag.[3][4]. The other sources shouldn't be disregarded, but they just don't have much depth to offer. It could be covered within due weight in a parent article, but the question is then whether it belongs in the separate Poppy or Suki articles, and I wager that it (1) fits best in neither, and (2) has enough coverage to stand on its own as a company article rather than shoehorned into one of the aforementioned founders' articles. Unless the four sources mentioned above now count for nothing, we should be discussing merger/redirection (and not deletion) as a minimum. @DGG and HighKing czar 20:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The item in Vogue, as I mentioned, is basically an advertorial for their bags. The item in the Sunday Times is written in such a tone that nobody could take it seriously as a source for anything. To call it an advertorial would be an unjustified compliment. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 1 January 2017 (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.