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.
Delete as per nom. Simply an advertisement. Was originally illustrated with copy-vio images . Now simply a promotional piece. Sources are trivial including one of the partners talking about his company and how being really rich meant that they didn't have to worry about the banks - yeuck! Fails
WP:GNG. VelellaVelella Talk 13:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep the article is a stub and is being worked on further. The brand is known and has been worn by a number of known public figures. I will suggest that contributions be made to make it much better rather than deleting it as it is a stub. Thanks.--
Tripplehaze7 (
talk)
09:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Question for
Tripplehaze7: Assuming for a moment that being worn by "known public figures" is of encyclopedic concern, just who are these people (according to specified, reliable, independent, published sources)? --
Hoary (
talk)
09:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Answer to
Hoary: According to what I have gathered from some featured articles and mentions in articles, they are a luxury brand that has been around since 2013. Thanks.--
Tripplehaze7 (
talk)
10:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
I withdraw my question, because the claim I was asking about is no longer in the article.
Farhan gazi has
replaced it with "The brand's full head-to-toe looks have been worn by some famous place in
Florida its establishment" (sourced not independently but instead to the company's own website). --
Hoary (
talk)
12:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Tripplehaze7, She admits it. The sources for this article are all promotional garbage, written by hacks, not real journalists. If Suzie ever writes a piece of pullitzer-prize winning investigative journalism, I bet she'll be adding something else than "I help companies market their brand" to her byline. Reputable news sources do not "help companies market their brand".
Vexations (
talk)
12:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Tripplehaze7, well, it's pretty simple: When I wrote "hack", I meant that in the sense of "working for hire especially with mediocre professional standards" or "a person who works or writes purely for the purpose of earning money."
[1] was written by Suzie Ocie, whose bio says: " am a women’s rights activist, running junkie, and eternal marketing student. I help companies market their brand to millennials and gen z. ..."
[2] is a press release. Note the mention of "vast high-profile media coverage".
[3] was written by Saqib Malik, the "Chief editor" of clout, who "is an established technical expert with 9+ years of background in Web Development and Digital Marketing. His passion for helping people in all aspects of online marketing flows through in the expert industry coverage he provides..."
[4] was written by Cormac Reynolds, for the Los Angeles Post-Examiner, who are reluctant to tell us who they are, per
[5] "So who are we? Stay tuned." If you do your own search for Cormac Reynolds you'll find several people by that name. None of them is a real journalist, but we do find a "Content Marketer and SEO Link Builder" who has worked for the Baltimore Post Examiner, the parent company of our source.
[6] barely mentions the subjec. It doesn't come close to what WP:NCORP requires. Best to just Ignore it. Now what's really interesting is the degree to which these tree article by Ocie, Malik and Reynolds, are the same. They copy each other or a template that was provided to them. That's how these PR/SEO writers operate; they don't investigate and do their own reporting. So yeah, hacks is a fair and accurate description.
Delete - not a notable company, sources mentioned in this AfD don't meet standards. YouTube videos and self-published blogs don't really get us close to notability.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk)
18:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)reply
No. Don't waste our time suggesting that we consider sources that are written by "MDO S. de R.L. Full digital/nomad Marketing Agency". Read
WP:NCORP and provide only sources that meet those requirements. No press releases, self-published sources and blogs.
Vexations (
talk)
14:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. There's very little of the article; what have been proposed as additional sources aren't worth consideration. --
Hoary (
talk)
22:15, 23 June 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.
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.
Delete as per nom. Simply an advertisement. Was originally illustrated with copy-vio images . Now simply a promotional piece. Sources are trivial including one of the partners talking about his company and how being really rich meant that they didn't have to worry about the banks - yeuck! Fails
WP:GNG. VelellaVelella Talk 13:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep the article is a stub and is being worked on further. The brand is known and has been worn by a number of known public figures. I will suggest that contributions be made to make it much better rather than deleting it as it is a stub. Thanks.--
Tripplehaze7 (
talk)
09:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Question for
Tripplehaze7: Assuming for a moment that being worn by "known public figures" is of encyclopedic concern, just who are these people (according to specified, reliable, independent, published sources)? --
Hoary (
talk)
09:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Answer to
Hoary: According to what I have gathered from some featured articles and mentions in articles, they are a luxury brand that has been around since 2013. Thanks.--
Tripplehaze7 (
talk)
10:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
I withdraw my question, because the claim I was asking about is no longer in the article.
Farhan gazi has
replaced it with "The brand's full head-to-toe looks have been worn by some famous place in
Florida its establishment" (sourced not independently but instead to the company's own website). --
Hoary (
talk)
12:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Tripplehaze7, She admits it. The sources for this article are all promotional garbage, written by hacks, not real journalists. If Suzie ever writes a piece of pullitzer-prize winning investigative journalism, I bet she'll be adding something else than "I help companies market their brand" to her byline. Reputable news sources do not "help companies market their brand".
Vexations (
talk)
12:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Tripplehaze7, well, it's pretty simple: When I wrote "hack", I meant that in the sense of "working for hire especially with mediocre professional standards" or "a person who works or writes purely for the purpose of earning money."
[1] was written by Suzie Ocie, whose bio says: " am a women’s rights activist, running junkie, and eternal marketing student. I help companies market their brand to millennials and gen z. ..."
[2] is a press release. Note the mention of "vast high-profile media coverage".
[3] was written by Saqib Malik, the "Chief editor" of clout, who "is an established technical expert with 9+ years of background in Web Development and Digital Marketing. His passion for helping people in all aspects of online marketing flows through in the expert industry coverage he provides..."
[4] was written by Cormac Reynolds, for the Los Angeles Post-Examiner, who are reluctant to tell us who they are, per
[5] "So who are we? Stay tuned." If you do your own search for Cormac Reynolds you'll find several people by that name. None of them is a real journalist, but we do find a "Content Marketer and SEO Link Builder" who has worked for the Baltimore Post Examiner, the parent company of our source.
[6] barely mentions the subjec. It doesn't come close to what WP:NCORP requires. Best to just Ignore it. Now what's really interesting is the degree to which these tree article by Ocie, Malik and Reynolds, are the same. They copy each other or a template that was provided to them. That's how these PR/SEO writers operate; they don't investigate and do their own reporting. So yeah, hacks is a fair and accurate description.
Delete - not a notable company, sources mentioned in this AfD don't meet standards. YouTube videos and self-published blogs don't really get us close to notability.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk)
18:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)reply
No. Don't waste our time suggesting that we consider sources that are written by "MDO S. de R.L. Full digital/nomad Marketing Agency". Read
WP:NCORP and provide only sources that meet those requirements. No press releases, self-published sources and blogs.
Vexations (
talk)
14:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. There's very little of the article; what have been proposed as additional sources aren't worth consideration. --
Hoary (
talk)
22:15, 23 June 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.