Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cabi Holdings Inc.

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. Dconcannon's contributions indicate that they are likely a promotional editor. After discounting their views, only one "keep" opinion remains. Sandstein 22:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cabi Holdings Inc.[edit]

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

Only seeing passing mentions and unreliable sources, if there's better out there, I couldn't find it. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of sources. There are better sources out there, and I found many. vote changed to Delete after TonyBallioni's detailed explanation. I still think the article is notable, however, it is too promotional and not well referenced. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added references from Fortune magazine and the Huffington Post in addition to the articles referenced by User:L293D. Dconcannon (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete First, sourcing doesn't matter as it is utter spam and thus excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM. Passage of WP:NOT is a requirement to pass WP:N in addition to the general guideline that is found there. It is impossible for a particular article to meet the notability requirements if it is excluded from Wikipedia's scope, and advertisements are. If we want to go at the sourcing, however, it is necessary to evaluate it. Since this is a relatively new AfC reviewer, I'll go through the sourcing here for their benefit and the benefit of other AfD participants. For the record, I am referring to the sourcing order in this version of the article.

Is an interview, and thus a primary source so it doesn't count towards notability.
Is both a blogpost (no editorial oversight from HuffPost, so not considered reliable), and an interview, so primary, making it double excluded for the purposes of notability.
Is on a website that accepts self-published content and the author is a "contributor" which means blogger with no editorial oversight. Not reliable.
Blog post for a PR firm.
Crunchbase: has not been considered intellectually independent in AfD since at least early 2017. It essentially recycles press releases or stories given to it by the company.
Company website.
Directory listing
Trade press, and largely based on sourcing provided by the company itself (as is common for trade press), meaning it is not intellectually independent and is excluded by WP:ORGIND.
Press release.
Only actual decent source here. Arguably has some journalistic analysis, but also contains a lot of basic stock updates. We can count it towards notability, but it is a very weak source, and we'd likely want to see at least two more strong sources, or three or four weak ones.
Reprinted press releases and statements from company employees, nothing more. Fails WP:ORGIND
Link spam to a shopping website
Same as #11, from the same author. Even if they counted (which they don't), they'd only count as one source because of this.

Nothing else appears on a BEFORE search either. I'll also note that neither of the keep !voters here are independent: User:L293D was the AfC reviewer who accepted, which means he is biased to defend his own personal choices. The other editor is the creator who appears to either be paid without declaring in violation of the TOU or have a massive COI. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. OK, then I'll be an independent Keep !voter. The subject is notable; the Fortune magazine source is an independent, indepth piece, as the piece from Racked (I don't see anywhere that they are a self publisher, they are quite clear they review content, don't accept it all, and pay competitive rates for content they print), as is the Fast Company piece (not at all a trade paper, it's a business magazine, published since 1995, if it's a trade paper than so is Fortune), as are the pieces from Women's Wear Daily (which is not only a perfectly respectable trade paper, but arguably the trade paper, "the bible of fashion", nothing to sneer at) which means Wikipedia: Notability is thoroughly met. The company concept (selling fashion through a multi-level marketing scheme) is ... intriguing... whether or not we like it, and clearly reliable sources have covered it enough that we should too. The article is not so long that making it less promotional without deleting it entirely is out of the question, and per Wikipedia:Deletion policy that is what people that think it is too promotional should do, not delete the whole thing. --GRuban (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my analysis of the sourcing: with the exception of Fortune this is entirely churnalism, interviews, and repeating PR nonsense. It is reference bombing, and to be frank, a disgustingly promotional spam piece. We are allowed to take the obvious promotional intent of the author into account when determine deletion, and per WP:WHATISTOBEDONE and DEL14, we are more than free to delete for the NOTSPAM violation. AfD does not require the G11 level to delete, simply that it be promotional. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Tony. On L293Ds talk you were urging him to "keep his chin up", and that he "seemed to be a bit down", and now you're saying the article he approved is "a disgustingly promotional spam piece"? Are you Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?

Anyway, the whole article is only 12 sentences long. Are all 12 sentences really "disgustingly promotional"? For example, here is the first sentence: "Cabi Holdings Inc. is a United States-based designer and seller of women's clothing that uses a multi-level marketing model to distribute products." Nope, seems pretty dry and factual. The second: "Cabi was founded in 2002[3] by co-founders Carol Anderson and Kimberly Inskeep, and is based in Carson, California." Likewise. The third: "As a multi-level marketing company, Cabi recruits independent distributors (referred to by the firm as "stylists") to sell products directly, often through social media or through a party plan." Also pretty factual. So, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, "improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page". Clearly at least the first three sentences are not "disgustingly promotional", right? So we can clearly trim no more than 9 sentences and keep, yes? And honestly, I think not all 9 of the others are "disgusting"; that's a pretty strong word. --GRuban (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and anyway, if its so promotional, then just reword the sentence you find too promotional and move on. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L293D: no, that simply rewards spammers and encourages them to keep placing advertisements in Wikipedia. This is likely a page that was created in violation of our terms of use, and as such, has no right to be here. It is actively harming Wikipedia even by existing, because it decreases the credibility of every non-advertisement we have here. Keeping this article lowers the value of Wikipedia to the reader, it does not improve it.

To the other point, we have to take the article in context as a whole, not break it down to the sentence level. I never said that this was G11 level, I said that it was disgustingly promotional, which it is. No one writes in 1960s ad speak anymore, Native advertising is a thing, and this quite clearly fits the bill. It is a ref-bombed article with utter crap sourcing (the subsequent analysis never addressed my point re: intellectual independence and I'll raise a new one re: WP:SPIP which also excludes all of them).

The rule of thumb here is whether or not top Google placement on the 5th most visited website in the world would be the most significant coverage a subject has received, and if so, whether or not the intent was to promote as a native advert. That is clearly the case here, and as such, we delete it as spam. There is no way to fix that, so the deletion policy is met. WP:N is failed on both counts (failure of NOT and failure of the GNG when read in the light of WP:NCORP), and all we are doing if we keep it is helping people exploit an educational volunteer project for commercial gain. That lowers our credibility, and hurts this project. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: If an article written in an encyclopedic tone is 'disgusting spam' and 'wholly promotional', then isn't every article on Wikipedia about a business an advertisement as well? Really, I can't find anything promotional about that article: find a promotional sentence in it and I'll reconsider my position. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L293D,it has to deal with the way facts are presented, which is the whole point of native advertising, you are not supposed to be able to tell at first glance that it is in fact an advert. This pretty clearly was: it included quite a lot of linkspam (including directly linking to an online storefront as a reference.)

I've removed the linkspam now, but the fundamental problems remain: the business model section is written as a how to guide to get involved with the multi-level marketing that it does. If you are unfamiliar with multi-level marketing, they are scams where you harass your friends to come sell clothing for you. Another major issue here is that it presents the highly dubious claim that the average independent contractor make $30,000 a year in the lead, sourced to a freelancer (not staff writer) for a website of unclear reliability. It is very common for freelancers to simply use stories literally handed to them by corporate marketing departments for this type of work (or to base them of the general instructions given by these departments).

This is an issue, because we know through academic studies, that as of 2000, the average MLM made less than $5,000. That is roughly $7,200 in 2018, and I highly doubt that the average has gone up, or that this company's contractors make more than quadruple the inflation adjusted average, yet that is presented as a fact based on a dubious source. It is also what you would expect from native advertising.

I don't want to go through line by line and explain the marketing techniques they are using, but I can if need be. The problem with this article is that it is an advertisement that is masquerading as an article and presenting the most positive spin on a company in Wikipedia's voice. No one writes in 1960s adspeak anymore because it isn't effective. This is the modern style of marketing that is being taught in all journalism and communications schools, and if you work with new content on Wikipedia enough, it becomes easy to spot. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tony. I see your point. I also re-read the Racked article, and it's clearly promotional, as opposed to neutral. Surgery coming. I think I can still support a Keep, but let me see what's left. --GRuban (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni:This is an article in the same vein as any of a multitude of women's clothing companies on Wikipedia. Of the literal 100's of similar examples I could list, I submit Lane Bryant, Ann Inc., and Anthropologie for review. What differentiates Cabi Holdings Inc. from any of these examples? I tried to be as objective as possible and use reputable sources when I created the article. I understand the scrutiny but would love to know how to make the article suitable, as I am admittedly a neophyte in the editing of Wikipedia. Thank you all for the help and advice! Dconcannon (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, probably the majority of new corporate articles we get aren't suited for Wikipedia, and we used to be much worse at checking for this than we are today. That other articles are spammy is not a reason to allow a new one in. The best advice I can give you is what is found in WP:NOTSPAM: Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts [...] Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Again, I feel that I was deliberately neutral in writing the article and I fail to see how I violated 10 rules for publishing WP:10SR. I find it ironic that it's so easy to dismiss a company founded in the US by 2 females, with a female CEO that does $250 million a year in sales and is operating in 3 countries. Perhaps the general knowledge gap of the subject stems from WP:BIAS from editors outside of their customer demographic of 40-65 year old women. Additionally, you're calling references from well respected lifestyle and business publications such as HuffPost, Fortune (magazine), and Fast Company (magazine) poor references and "Native Advertising", which is patently false. Publications that engage in native advertising must explicitly state so in the articles themselves.Dconcannon (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TB but also a review of the sources suggests no actual independent, in-depth coverage of the subject. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tonyballioni. He did an excellent analysis of the sources which I checked over and agree with. We aren't a vehicle for promotion, either, and should remain that way. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Tonyballioni's review. A run-of-the-mill company with zero indications of notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 01:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:09, 2 March 2018 (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.