Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VPROVE

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. Kurykh (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VPROVE[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Not satisfying our essential standards and policies, even the simplest ones such as WP:NOT (non-negotiable policy), since both the information and sources here are all mere business announcements, mentions and similar, none of them substantiate a convincing article and it's all there is since the company is barely a few months old; as with these subjects, there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone. No amount of sources will convince our policies otherwise since they never negotiate with company webhosting and the history here confirms it's an advertised campaign. Speedy tagged by Robert McClenon. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: As I stated in the talk page, the brand has received significant media attention (from reliable sources, no less). The prose itself is unbiased and without puffery only stating the relevant details of the brand. It doesn't differ to any South Korean skincare pages like Skin Food,The Face Shop, Innisfree (cosmetics brand) and the likes. It also has a corresponding page in Korean wikipedia, in Hangul. XPG 08:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

KEEP: The article is well-cited by third party reliable sources which aren't mere business announcements. It has received attention since it was launched by CosmoCos which is a subsidiary of Korea Tobacco & Ginseng Corporation, per citations. 180.191.0.254 (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As stated by nominator, the sources are mere business announcements and, like the entire article, are promotion. Should have been deleted as WP:G11. Not notable as a corporation or as a product line. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The above two Keeps are not separate !votes because they were both written by the same IP (who also removed the speedy tag). Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nothing promotional about it. Even pages of other South Korean beauty products are much more poorly written than this one. The prose is entirely objective and well-cited. No need to delete.176.78.19.167 (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not really notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.100.136.224 (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Purely promotional. Nothing notable about subject. Article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Sources are business announcements. Some of the sources don't even mention VProve, just the parent company. Fails basic WP:GNG. CBS527^Talk 02:18, 14 February 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.