Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NYX Cosmetics

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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NYX Cosmetics[edit]

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

Delete and Salt as not only was I involved in the last blatant advertising deletion and here it is again, showing not only the sheer blatancy but the fact messages such as WP:SPAM and WP:NOT (which are policy) are not apparently being comprehended, hence delete and let's not overwork ourselves with such things as simple of blatant advertising. As it is, the sources and information are as equally trivial and unconvincing as is the number of space-filling sentences. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company has had many instances of significant independent coverage in reliable secondary sources such as th LA Times, Forbes and Bloomberg, easily satisfying WP:ORG. Little if anything in the article cannot be sourced to such sources. The company was sold in 2014 to L'Oreal for five hundred million dollars. The nomination smacks of IDONTLIKEIT. Edison (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the nomination in fact follows WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, especially considering it's policy (while WP:BASIC, WP:CORP and WP:GNG are not) and the Forbes link above explicitly says "by a non-staff contributor" hence it was a genuine publication article but instead a hired one. Sinppy because a publication is major is not making it immune to everything either company-supplied for advertising or PR-based. SwisterTwister talk 17:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article which says positive things about a company, when those statements are sourceable to reliable and independent sources, does not violate WP:NOT or WP:SPAM. It is inappropriate to ignore WP:GNG just because it is a notability guideline rather than a policy. It represents best practice and should generally be followed, especially when WP:NOT and WP:SPAM do not apply to the article, since the positive things said about the subject are generally supported by reliable mainstream publications. See the links which appear when one bothers to click the "news" link at the top of this discussion: " Banking On Beauty: How Toni Ko Built NYX Cosmetics Into A $500 million brand,"Forbes-Jun 1, 2016 It is written by "Clare O'Connor , FORBES STAFF," not a "non-staff contributor."(an earlier Forbes article had a non-staff editor). It says that after L'Oreal bought the company for $500 million, the same store sales grew 78% in 2015. There is an article in Allure magazine, a mainstream publication:on the history of Nyx Cosmetics: "5 Things You Didn't Know About NYX Cosmetics," by Renee Jacque, Feb 24, 2016 When the article states "Both beauty bloggers and professional makeup artists rave about the brand's innovative products and love that the company has kept its prices low, even as its range has expanded." That is not "spam." It is coming from the article, not the personal opinion of a Wikipedia editor, and not just a promotional effort by the Nyx company. We should observe the difference. Bustle (magazine) had an article "Where To Buy NYX Cosmetics' Special Edition Wanderlust City Sets ..." by Kali Borovic, Nov 26, 2016 which says positive things about some makeup sets. Refinery29 has an article "Nyx Is Launching The Coolest Shadow Vault You've Ever Seen" by Kelsey Castanon. Oct 3, 2016 which says "Nyx Cosmetics has consistently pumped out quality beauty products at affordable prices since launching in 1999. " It goes on to say positive things about the cosmetics. Not spam, not an advertisement. Marie Claire had an article "Everything you need to know about NYX cosmetics (because it’s awesome)"by Anita Bhagwandas, April 21, 2016 in a UK online edition. The article calls it a " trend-led affordable brand" and says that it started out being sold at trade shows to professionals before going mass market, along with positive statements about several products from Nyx. The Los Angeles Times had an article "How I Made It Toni Ko's next fortune could be made in shades," by Ronald D. White, April 17, 2016 which has extensive coverage of the founding of Nyx by Toni Ko, and its growth and success. This sourcing easily satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ORG. If anything in the article is spammy advertising, it can be tagged for lack of refs and removed. This article, like all articles, is a work in progress. Edison (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources are clear advertising and in fact violate WP:NOT, SPAM and WP:ORGIND because (1) the Forbes is clear advertising in that it was literally a hired freelancer for the company itself as are the others, clear interviews or other similar company-supplied information. WP:NOT explicitly states that we are not a PR webhost, regardless of anything, even including we are not compromisable for republished advertising. The Refinery is a clear PR trade website as is Bustle as it's a clear "Here's What You Need to Know about this company today"; Allure is then simply an entertainment magazine. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the assessment by Edison. There is enough significant coverage in reliable sources to both establish notability and provide context and background for any article cleanup needed. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is actually a straight advertisement without any claim to being a WP article. Had I seen it at NPP, I'd have used Speedy. Articles with promotional content canbe cleaned up; pure advertisements should never be. The possible notability is in this case irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. Notability is not inherited from a notable acquiring company. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI am concerned that some good editors are not reading the sources I linked to, and are jumping to conclusions while ignoring WP:N. The AFD nominator asserts that news articles in Forbes, the LA Times and other news sources are mere advertisements, when they are clearly editorial content rather than adverts. The nominator also asserts that the Forbes writer, who Forbes says is a "staff writer" is " literally a hired freelancer for the company itself" as are all other writers who have published about the company. Reliable sources should not be so casually dismissed. If the company is notable, then any promotional text in the article can be removed. I will have a go at that, and I urge others to take a look at the article in a few hours.Edison (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was asked to analyze this again, and I will note that the sources now listed are still only about what the company would advertise about itself, take the "opening shops this fall" for example, which is a clear PR regardless of anything or anyone because we've seen it numerous times for other companies. The concerns of repeated advertising also apply and therefore there's simply not enough motivating convincing to accept this. Yes, this article could be far far worse, but it's not actually better either, so it's not negotiable when it's advertising hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to revisit my vote as well, and I still see only a tribute page based on PR-like sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertorial sourced to press releases. Guy (Help!) 00:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment Theadded refs are not convincing . The WSJ one, for example is not about this firm, and just gives it a mention. DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was asked to take a second look at this AFD. I've re-reviewed the sources and reviewed the current opposing claims. The promotionalism claims are unconvincing and at times simply illogical. My Keep vote remains because of the fact that this company passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP due to significant coverage in reliable sources. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

are you really saying that we should keep everything that has RSs even if its an advertisement? DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My good fellow User:DGG, do you really think that provoking an extended discussion thread here is really wise? I'm still trying to wrap my head around one of your previous AFD claims that the Los Angeles Times is not a reliable source, except for entertainment news.[1] I'd welcome philosophical discussion on my talk page, but your provocations here at AFD are tiring. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that having an discussion on whether we should keep advertising about slightly notable subjects is very much to the point here, and at every AfD where the suggestion is made that NOT ADVERTISING is not policy. My understanding is that the basic policy of WP:NOT can't be over-riden on the basis of the notability guideline, which in essence is just the expansion and explanation of one part of WP:NOT, NOT INDISCRIMINATE. (The LATimes is not the issue here; I regret I didn't have time to follow up on the question, but I'll return to it when I do). DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find the sources listed above quite convincing that the company is significant in its field. Joyous! | Talk 02:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but not salt) per DGG - the CSD criteria text says an article that would have to be 'fundamentally rewritten' to not look like an advertisement should be speedied. This article fits that criteria in my view. Mike1901 (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, 2 deletions in the last years, one of them being only last month is serious enough for salt. At this time, basically WP:AFC would be the only conceivable path. SwisterTwister talk 16:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, we'd wait for three. I don't think it needs salting. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, this is sad. The article subject has significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, easily satisfying the guidelines for notability, but every one of those sources is dismissed as merely a "clear advertisement" when it is obviously editorial content rather than paid advertisement, and staff writers for the publications are claimed to be "employees of the company covered". Something odd is going on here. Why are some people so determined not to have an article about this major company? Why is a higher bar set for this company than for other companies of comparable size and media coverage? It is utter bullshit to claim that the article is "an advertisement. " Nowhere does it say anything like "This company makes great products, and you should buy them!" Rather, it is an objective and encyclopedic account of the company's founding and growth, and its sale to another company, and subsequent developments, fully sourced to reliable sources. Also, the AFD nominator claims to have deleted not one but TWO previous versions of the article, but did not provide a link to such previous version as is expected in an AFD nomination. A link would helpful if this goes to deletion review. Edison (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This started as a very simplistic, promotional-toned article, and as it stood on Nov 23 I would also have had the reaction to delete. However, the above discussion has helped identify numerous sources, and kudos to Edison for bringing the sources into the article as well as improving it. The company's history has been noted and discussed in the press, and seems the cosmetics line as well, prior and after it's acq by L'Oreal. It should be quite possible to write a tolerable article about this, though also potentially the content could variously be a) trimmed, b) selectively merged into L'Oreal, c) the remainder turned into an article about the founder instead, since one could argue the coverage is about her success story as an entrepreneur. Any of these is an acceptable outcome, subject to editorial discretion -- there is no need to delete. Martinp (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this company is notable per Forbes, The Korea Herald, Marie Claire, and Allure. Some users are making the claim that the possible notability is irrelevant, since the article is advertising and thus violates WP:NOT. As DGG puts it, "the basic policy of WP:NOT can't be over-riden on the basis of the notability guideline." However, I don't think the article violates WP:NOT. The policy says that "information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery," but also that "an article can report objectively about such things [topics susceptible to advocacy], as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view."

So to me there is no conflict between WP:NOT and WP:N. If the article is promotional, we can rewrite it. If it is non-notable, we can delete it. But we shouldn't delete notable articles for being promotional, except in those particularly egregious cases that fall under G11. Use of the passive voice aside, WP:SPAM puts it well: a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's currently in the article is exactly what you would find at the company's "About" including such blatancy as "This product brought in revenue of $2 million the first year, after starting business with a two hundred fifty thousand dollar loan from her parents....The products were initially sold only to beauty professionals, before Ko expanded sale to mass-market outlets" - That's LinkedIn-esque information, not Wikipedia's goals. As it is, the current article noticeably hangs on the best claims of significance it has, and that's the fact it was involved with L'Oreal; if any of us partnered with L'Oreal, that's not automatically making us notable. As it is, the Forbes itself, I will note, has such clear primary as "Ko set out", "Ko says", Ko's plans", "Her first products were eye and lip pencils, sold for $1.99 apiece -- a bargain when hot brands such as Urban Decay and MAC Cosmetics were selling theirs for $10 or more, she calls it....", "her suppliers to create each product to her exacting specifications. She also cut out extraneous costs", "Ko knew that to build NYX into a mass market brand, beyond the cult world of connoisseurs and teen fanatics, she'd have to get her products into mainstream stores. She set her sights", complete with beachside margaritas, Ko decided", Ko had more than 100 pairs herself and had paid upwards of $300 for most of them", "Her company....With its bold colors and kooky frames", etc. This is what the article was when I nominated and this is the current article; how is that at all substantially different than their own published company words? The fact this has been deleted twice before, once this last month alone, is enough showing its advertising intentions. How is that in tune with Wikipedia goals? SwisterTwister talk 03:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not cleanup. If there are problems with what's currently in the article, we should fix them through normal editing, not deletion. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I comment because I have a relevant question: How can we clean an article when the listed and offered sources themselves show what PR was quoted above? SwisterTwister talk 00:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article, some of which has already occurred after this was nominated for deletion (performed by another user, diff). Per a source review, the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources that report positively about companies are not automatically all associated with the company as some sort of peculiar default. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 21 December 2016 (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.