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. Consensus is that the sources are insufficient at this time.  Sandstein  08:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sweat Cosmetics

Sweat Cosmetics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

promotional and non-notable. The references are all of them part of the promotion, (even though about half of them just list it among a group of "cosmetics for this summer") and they apparently want to add Wikipedia to the list of media they've persuaded to run their advertisements. . Both for their ads and for their WP articles they rely on celebrity endorsements, which might make good advertisements, but areno evidence of notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Disagree. It's a notable business started by notable women athletes. Article meets WP:GNG criteria. If there are "promotional" concerns, they should be specifically indicated so that the article can be improved, not deleted per WP:ATD. Hmlarson ( talk) 19:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Hmlarson: Isn't this an argument for notability by inheritance? I'm also curious which of the cited pieces you consider to offer significant and independent coverage. I don't mean to badger you; I'm asking in hopes that you can give me a reason not to vote "delete." Rebb ing 04:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep I agree that the article passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 20:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Also, the article does not have a particularly promotional tone. The article does not extol the benefits of the company, use peacock language, or encourage readers to do business with the company. Rather, it provides an overview about the company based upon what reliable sources state. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Upon consideration, I have struck my !vote and am remaining neutral. Upon further consideration, the company falls short of meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. This is per many of the reliable sources being interviews, which are primary in nature. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment Thank you. Please don't close it before a week. Gonna look at sources and a COI case. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 13:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep sources in the article meet the GNG. Article as it stands isn't overly promotional. I don't see how a delete case can even be made here. Hobit ( talk) 18:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• This is an undisclosed paid editing case. Violates WP:PROMO. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 06:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Cite? Hobit ( talk) 12:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• I'm trying to find a way to do it without violating WP:OUTING. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 13:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Lemongirl942, you said here that the nomination was closed prematurely and you were "....about to vote delete" performed a close. Then you took it to DRV where almost everyone endorsed it but looking at the suggestions, it was relisted two days back. I am surprised to notice that you have still not voted despite making so much noise about and how "premature" the closure was. If you can share what research are you conducting on this which is taking so much time - perhaps I can help you in finding out? I think you dont have a WP:COI with this article; else I am confident you would have made everyone aware about it. Stop beating a dead horse. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article sources pass notability. Even thinking this article should be deleted shows that issues related to women get marginalized by some editors on Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH by a mile. Paid advertorials and interviews do not show that the company is notable. Let's have a look at the sources

1. Instyle Trivial coverage. Brief advertorial reposting company's instagram. 2 sentences about company itself
2. KCTV Local source, almost primary as essentially an interview of founder.
3. Equalizer Soccer Self published source, coverage is brief as well
4. Our game mag Not independent. (Sweat cosmetics founder Leslie Osborne is affiliated with the magazine team. See [1], [2]) Self published magazine, although coverage is OK
5. Happi mag Not independent (advertorial), also fails WP:AUD
6. Hercampus User submitted content / campus publication
7. The Zoe Report Trivial coverage, 2 sentence coverage in a list of 5 products. Nothing about company itself
8. Total beauty Trivial coverage, 1 product is featured in a list of 8 products titled "8 New Beauty Products to Order This August". Nothing in depth about the company
9. Allure Trivial coverage, 3 sentence coverage in a list of "8 Crowdfunded Beauty Innovations You Need to Know".
10. Shape Trivial coverage, 2 sentence description of a product
11. ABC News interview Reliable source but almost primary, interview of founders
12. Bustle Trivial coverage, rehashing a tweet from one of the founders, notability is not inherited.

The company seems to have tried to use celebrities and connections to endorse its products. However, this doesn't add up to notability. WP:CORPDEPTH requires a depth of coverage; specifically quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources and inclusion in lists of similar organizations do not count towards significant coverage. In addition, some of the coverage seems to be paid advertorials which means it isn't really independent. Considering that the company is 1 year old, I would say this is WP:TOOSOON. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 22:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Nice work, Lemongirl. However, I disagree with your assessment of Her Campus: it may be an amateur magazine, but it's not merely user-submitted content. It appears that writers are vetted, often through local campus chapters; the by-line for this piece identifies the author as a "features writer" for Her Campus Santa Clara. Rebb ing 23:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• It is still a student publication though (and we tend not to use them for corporations). Hercampus has 7000 students as content writers. They do have a few permanent writers as well, but the author here is not one of them - she is a year one student at Santa Clara. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 02:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Observation: It is interesting that a user account w/ only 7 months experience editing Wikipedia articles (or participating in deletion discussions) is so stubbornly adamant in their interpretation of Wikipedia policies. The descriptions of references above are also interesting - glad the closing admin takes their own look at the references. Hmlarson ( talk) 00:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Lemongirl942, another observation: source #4 looks goos to me-- could you explain why it's SPS? HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 06:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• @ HappyValleyEditor:, it seemed self published due to the history of hosting the magazine on WordPress. See [3] which was later moved to [4] before moving to the present address. I see now that they have editorial control although I still feel it is one of those web only magazines which moved to print. However, it seems it is not an independent source as one of the founders of Sweat Cosmetics is affiliated to it. (See above). -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 06:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Hmlarson: a new editor showing others how to do things properly is awesome! You're correct to highlight this, well done Lemongirl942. Widefox; talk 19:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep But -- I'm also new to this type of decision process, not really sure. Perhaps the rule against "quotations from an organization's personnel" is meant to exclude articles about other topics, not articles about the company itself which include interviews of personnel? The rules about reliability of small publications aren't perfectly clear either, but ourgamemag and happi look like they might have a "reliable editorial process." At any rate, they say they have a staff of editors, and the articles are not obviously written by the company. JerryRussell ( talk) 00:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Sweat cosmetics founder Leslie Osborne is affiliated with the magazine team. See [5], [6]. That discounts it as an independent source. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 02:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep very thin sources establish very weak basic notability... just barely. Needs to have some of the nauseating promotional-speak "Sweated out". HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 06:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment passing GNG is a presumption of an article not a guarantee. We can delete WP:NOT promo/advert if we want. I don't have an answer, but a question..do all the editors here want to be having to scrupulously double check these promo sources at AfDs for this and other promos? (plug for my longer analysis at WP:BOGOF). Widefox; talk 08:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Reply - At this point, we kind of have to - it's far too easy to say "Notable because of X", and nobody is going to dispute that unless it's shown to them, because nobody polices the "per X" keep responses that we're not supposed to have in the first place. I mean, look at all the keep votes until LG broke everything down, and all of a sudden, popular opinion has shifted, hasn't it? MSJapan ( talk) 17:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

MSJapan I'm suggesting pushing cases like this back to AfC (maybe together with a requirement of the creator disclosing COI or explaining why on balance of probabilities their edit pattern isn't COI) so the BURDEN is back on the creator, rather than getting a buy a team for free offer. A COI speedy would likely be unenforceable. The only problem with User:Lemongirl942's good work, is that it's Buy one (editor) get one free (in this case working to get rid of the article TNT). It just saps precious resources. Widefox; talk 19:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per DGG, right about this as about several others of its kind. Appears to be yet more undisclosed paid advocacy, should be deleted on sight per WP:NOTSOAP (speedy criterion G11). Overtly promotional tone, promotional intent – it's an advertisement, and we don't allow advertisement. If the company is notable (and I'm far from convinced that it is), then the page can be re-created by a non-connected editor – but there's no WP:DEADLINE for that. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 15:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Promotional article with thin sourcing, primarily brief broadcast segments and corporate handouts. Wait until reliable sources have written about it. Meanwhile fails GNG. Note Lemongirl's very detailed analysis of the sources. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Reply - If only the descriptions were accurate. For example, Equalizer is one of the top sources for information about women's soccer in the U.S. and abroad in addition to your traditional newspaper websites. Our Game Magazine .... same... but you wouldn't know that if your sole intention is to delete the article and you have little or no history of women's soccer or interest in improving the article per WP:ATD. Sweat Cosmetics was founded by... wait for it... women's soccer players! Hmlarson ( talk) 19:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Our Game Magazine is not an independent sources as one of the founders is associated with it. Equalizer seems to be a self published source - I am unable to see if there is even an editorial process involved. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• False. Our Game Magazine is about women's soccer with numerous contributors from the same field. This article is about a business started by women's soccer players. Equalizer was started by NBC sports producer and writer Jeff Kassouf 1 who has also done work for Sports Illustrated, The Guardian, ESPN, and Fox Soccer. There's a great book on the history of women's soccer in America and around the globe if you'd like to get familiar 1 Hmlarson ( talk) 15:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Here [7], [8] is the evidence that Leslie Osborne (one of the founders of Sweat Cosmetics) is involved with the magazine. Just because others are also present doesn't make it independent. She is clearly able to influence the magazine to cover her company. As for equaliser, I still do not see any evidence of an editorial process. It may have been started by a journalist, but for all purposes it is still a self published site. More importantly, it also fails WP:AUD (a mere 12k followers on Twitter and 3k followers on Facebook). -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 02:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Yes, she's a former pro soccer player - you may have seen her on Fox Sports last summer covering the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup. Check out that book I mentioned. The author, Tim Grainey, 1 writes for The Equalizer along with others familiar with the field. 2 Hmlarson ( talk) 03:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - There's no way, if WP:CORPDEPTH was met, that 13 sources should effectively get us "they make cosmetics," but that's really what we have. There's obvious COATRACKing - Her Campus, with a profile on a founder, and all that comes out of it is that the products are hypoallergenic? Clearly the source wasn't about the product, then, was it? Several of the other references are "X number of X"-type articles, and those are never any good as sources. The fact that it's sold at Sephora? So is a lot of other stuff. Some famous people started it? WP:NOTINHERITED. I'm not seeing anything that tells me this is anything other than ordinary. The coverage is pretty typical product launch coverage because a famous person is involved, and said coverage is over a span of only two months, and at best it's WP:TOOSOON, and I'm not so sure it's got coverage outside of the news cycle. This is an SPA-created article on a company that simply doesn't meet notability guidelines. MSJapan ( talk) 17:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Lemongirl942, good job in your analysis. Once when you are done with this AfD, can you please give CSM Technologies a look? I have asked for an admin opinion on the article TalkPage. This looks like a SPAM to me with CTIEKILL. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment, sounds like we should be conscious of the WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS that might exist in this afd, keeping in mind that WP community is mostly men-- Prisencolin ( talk) 03:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Maybe, there's possibly a bigger WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS (of COI) to be conscious of, which may sap resources from countering that and other biases. Widefox; talk 20:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment JerryRussell, "articles about the company itself which include interviews of personnel " is something what we always should want to keep out of articles about the organization, whether commercial or not-profit. They are always and invariable intended for the purposes of public relations, and I am not sure it would be possible to find any exceptions. I think we might do well not only to not accept them for purposes of notability , but that we should as a matter or routine remove them from every article, and that we should regard any article containing them as likely to be promotional unless re-edited.
• HappyValleyEditor, if the promotional content were removed, we'd be left with "Sweat Cosmetics is an American cosmetics brand founded in 2015" That's the problem with promotional articles: remove the advertising and you're left with directory content only. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per DGG and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 16:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Question Why was a COI tag added to the article ~3 weeks into this discussion when the article has already been improved and cleaned-up before and during this AFD + then the re-opened AFD? Why is the most frequently commenting editor here pinging other users and not mentioning it? See also Talk:Sweat_Cosmetics COI is becoming ironic here. Hmlarson ( talk) 19:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Reply There's discussion on the talk about this, repeating the comment in the article. The answer is I added it. Is the comment in multiple places not clear? Best to take up there, unless you ironically wish to repeat COI discussion again. Widefox; talk 19:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Reply In the name of transparency, it's best that these multiple discussions are at a bare minimum referenced here rather than splitting them up and obscuring a full picture of what's transpired. What are we at now 5 different pages? AFD, Deletion Review, Article Talk, COI - most spearheaded by the same "newbie" editor. Hmlarson ( talk) 21:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

COI is all about disclosure i.e. transparency. I often mention COI at AfD, and most editors seemingly (and correctly) ignore it and concentrate on the sources. As can be seen above, we should concentrate more on the sources, like the good work of the "newbie" (I take it you agree it's good work and others should be inspired by relatively new editors doing better work than the rest of us?). Widefox; talk 08:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC) p.s. There's an whiff of BITE and ad hominem in your tone that seems to not be countered subtlely with my replies. Please drop. Widefox; talk 08:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Links: Forgot the links in my previous post: AFD #1 (initiated 6/22; re-opened 6/30), Deletion Review, Article Talk, COI. Hmlarson ( talk) 15:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails CORPDEPTH. May become a notable topic in future but is a promo delete right now. Note to closer would've been good to get fresh opinions from the early !voters. Widefox; talk 08:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as failing CORPDEPTH per Lemongirl942. My own searching didn't come up with anything better. The first page of ghits includes (in order):

1. their own website
2. Indegogo
3. A cosmetics store
4. Facebook
5. Twitter
6. Instagram
7. A warmed-over press release on a cosmetics site
8. The ABC News puff-piece video

This is not the sort of search results you want to see for a notable company. This is the sort of search results you see for a company with a well-executed social networking marketing campaign, and this wikipedia article appears to just be part of that campaign. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment
  • the ABC News interview certainly counts as a reliable source (not primary and not sure how it's a puff-piece--what else are you expecting on a cosmetics company?)
  • The Instyle article gives us a fair bit of information and is also a reliable source.
  • Equalizer Soccer is a reliable source (though one I don't know much about) focused on soccer. It claims to be written by "staff" which may or may not mean it's a press release.

I'll stand by my keep !vote. Hobit ( talk) 00:33, 17 July 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.