Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIDA (online retailer)

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. ✗plicit 23:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VIDA (online retailer)

[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)

Business fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG; an apparel startup with no in-depth, significant coverage beyond routine funding announcements and pieces about facemasks. No notability presented. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Business, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, obvious WP:GNG... I find it hard to square Alexandermcnabb claim of "no in-depth, significant coverage beyond routine funding announcements and pieces about facemasks" with these sources [1][2][3][4][5] which are not routine funding announcements and pieces about facemasks, were they missed somehow by the nominator? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User:Horse Eye's Back cites the same business journal article twice, some profiles, and WP:TECHCRUNCH as reasons to speedy keep. I would not do that. I didn't turn up much, and what I see is dependent sources or otherwise not the significant independent reliable third-party coverage we'd like to see to establish notability per WP:ORGCRIT. This is also highly promotional. FalconK (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do appear to have fat fingered the same source in there twice... But remember we only need 3 quality sources for WP:GNG. If GNG is met (it is) then WP:ORGCRIT is irrelevant. None of the articles I highlighted are dependent and neither is the content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a somewhat unconventional interpretation of the application of NCORP. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP applies as per WP:SNG unless for exceptional reasons it shouldn't (which I don't see here) - arguments based on "only needs to meet GNG so let's ignore SNG and NCORP and SIGCOV and ..." is not the general consensus of the community. FalconK's analysis is spot on, none of the references meet NCORP. And I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP, WP:SNG. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:40, 29 June 2022 (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.