Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snobette

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. By raw nose-count, this looks like NC, but I find the keep arguments to be particularly unconvincing. They generally do not cite policy-based reasons to keep, and tend to be from users with limited editing experience. I'd be willing to userfy this if somebody wants to work on finding sources which would satisfy WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snobette[edit]

[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)

Completely WP:REFBOMBed and any reliable source is at best a passing mention. GPL93 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the blog has multiple relevant sources. I have included a lot of references, but it's just because I found a lot. I stumbled across it when I was researching some rapper and I was surprised that they had such notable mentions, such as:

Bright Magazine https://issuu.com/brighttradeshow/docs/bright_mag_s09_en page 50

This talked about the lack of female and POC bloggers and how influential they are in the space

Yahoo https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/Tlifestyle/white-nonsense-pradas-500-t-shirts-featuring-civil-rights-activist-angela-davis-come-fire-185640969.html

Yahoo article that spoke about a Twitter trend that started after an interview featured on Snobette.

Article on HIMYB

https://himyb.com/2013/06/17/how-i-met-highsnobette-thesnobette/

However, let me try to rewrite it. I think I can improve it.Juju (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize but the Yahoo article absolutely does not talk how influential they are. There is one mention in passing and even then its in reference to a subject that Snobette interviewed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I also wanted to include more major POC and female blogs and I'd like to chronicle all the major streetwear blogs. I think it's important to not trivalize diversity and not think that just because women and POC do something that is worthy of deletion.

Even with the rise of streetwear, women of color fight to be heard and hired in fashion - Other reference: https://qz.com/quartzy/1370698/even-with-the-rise-of-streetwear-women-of-color-fight-to-be-heard-and-hired-in-fashion/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jujucabana (talk • contribs) 23:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Nobody said "just because women and POC do something that is worthy of deletion". The article subject appears to lack significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The references are passing mentions (like the Yahoo link), blogs, or primary sources. Citobun (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything is trivial for now. Also written in an inacceptable promotional tone (not part of my argument, just something that must be improved if the article is kept). Sam-2727 (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree that the article is somewhat lacking substance and reads a wee bit promotional. However, that is the nature of the beast. Fashion and trendsetting is never going to conform to encyclopaedic rigorousness. You can laugh at some of the references, but again, that is the nature of the beast. The Yahoo reference doesn't fly. Nor do the Addidas or the WWD references. Keep for a cleanup of references. Whiteguru (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except fashion and trendsetting are regularly covered by reliable sources (GQ, Vogue, Cosmo, Complex, etc.). This isn't even a case of WP:TOOSOON as this is a site that has been around for 13 years and there is still nothing more than unreliable sourcing and passing mentions. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there was some standardization for blogs. At Cision to be considered for its Help A Reporter, you have to have to rank over *300,000 on Amazon's Alexa Page Rank. This blog would qualify for its metric. There should be some standardization on noteworthy blogs. Juju (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jujucabana, in my opinion no. "Blogs" (under my definition at least) don't employ fact checking so aren't reliable no matter the amount of readers. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this day and age, no facts are reliable. However, I think that some standardization for news website is probably needed. It could be 1) needs to rank at certain level 2) needs to employ fact checkers...et cetera. Otherwise, it seems very arbitary and racist imho what is chosen to delete and what remains. POC blogs and other sources will never have a chance to rank, if the qualifiers is to be seen by historically racist news media. Juju (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The blog hasn't been covered by reliable black-owned and run sources (The Root, Complex, the New York Amsterdam News) either though. Even if you want to move away from the criteria Wikipedia uses, Snobette's social presence (10.4k Twitter, 15.3k IG, 8.9k FB) and Youtube subscriptions (18.5k) are not indicative of a blog with high visibility or influence. Pretty much any site with these stats is not likely to have received enough coverage to merit an article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It actually has three references in complex that I am just noticing now.

https://www.complex.com/search?q=snobette#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=snobette&gsc.page=1 If they didn't break the story first, Complex wouldn't have had it. Juju (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But none of these are actually about the subject itself. And not that breaking stories means much in notability terms, but for at least the first reference Snobette didn't even break the story, the second story is just Snobette being included among bunch of imbedded tweets and vine reactions, the third is a passing mention.GPL93 (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see significant coverage mostly passing mentions, but couple of in depth articles too, but it is meeting the definition of significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me which of the references is significant, in-depth coverage from reliable sources? I can only find one and its part of a listicle. Multiple references do not even mention the subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2020 (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.