Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zalora

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. Considering that two of the "keep" opinions are qualified as "weak", and that a third does not address the sourcing situation, I think we can find a narrow consensus to delete. But this can probably be restored if rewritten to appear less promotional and using better sources. Sandstein 17:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zalora[edit]

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

Alleged to be non-notable, and appears to be written like an advertisement. Was previously csd-deleted in 2012, listing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(uninitiated in fashion) Keep Article is currently in a large majority just an excessively detailed chronicle of the company's development/expansion history. Not really promotional, but mor of general WP:IINFO. Better sources appear to exist, to hopefully inspire more depth from editors with expertise in fashion/eCommerce. Example source I feel useful: [1][2][3][4] 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While the article definitely needs cleanup to remove advertising material, the topic meets WP:GNG. WP:TNTing the article may be appropriate. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now as News found some of the news links and although this could be better, I suppose it's acceptable for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article looks terrible at the moment, and it may need to be reduced down to something like only two sentences. However, the organization has picked up the kind of reliable source coverage that makes it seem at least partly notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Classic promotional article, with promotional language. And sources that talk only about initial funding are unreliable for notability, because they are essentially mere notices. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I'm sympathetic to DGG's concerns, and the article could use some improvement, I think the English language sources alone show the company's notability: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. I think it's safe to assume that there are plenty of non-English sources available too. Sam Walton (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For goodness sake! This is a three-year-old start-up which "hopes one day to be a billion dollar business" but isn't now. Have any of you actually read the "coverage"? With the exception of the article from... er... Popspoken which is primarily about one of the brands this company is marketing (not the company), they are all reprints of press releases or blatantly press release-based. That goes for CNBC and Elle as well. TechCrunch is a particular offender in puffing start-ups and their CEOs via multiple PR pieces masquerading as articles. I would never regard a write-up in TechCrunch as mark of notability. Ditto VentureBeat. Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO advert, article based on press releases and routine announcements, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO. None of the references cited in the article or offered in this AfD meet the requirements of WP:RS; they are all routine listings of funding rounds, rehashed press releases, interviews, etc. FWIW, I also note that the primary author of the article is a WP:SPA -- RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotion and fails WP:CORPDEPTH per Kraxler. MrWooHoo (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for improvement - clearly a notable topic, and a fixable article in my opinion. --Slashme (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional gunk. I actually went into this with an open mind, leaning keep, but found bupkiss counting towards fulfillment of GNG in a Google search. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2015 (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.