Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIGS (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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FIGS (company)[edit]

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

Higly promotional. Sources are mix of Churnalism and routine press coverage. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIGCOV scope_creep (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The Miami Herald and LA Times articles are bylined and entirely about this company. Those are just two examples of the coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The WP:NCORP notability is now in place. I would like to update the Afd to and Fails WP:NCORP scope_creep (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added add scope_creep (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've improved the wording of the "Overview" paragraph. Was wondering if the owners could be notable rather than the company. Deb (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources are mostly WP:SPIP; clearly WP:TOOSOON for a company that is doing a lot of self-promotion, with no significant achievements just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability; probable paid editor. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The LA Times article is based on information provided to the company. The first Miami Herald article appears as if the bulk of the article were provided by the company's PR department. I'm more convinced about the independence of the second Herald article, but a single independent, reliable source with in-depth coverage is not enough to pass WP:GNG or NCORP. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:57, 28 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.