Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belen Echandia (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Belen Echandia
AfD discussions for this article: 

I believe that this page is commercial in nature and should be deleted unless modified and displays alternate opinions. Belen Echandia does not uniquely offer a bespoke service, many handbag designers offer this same service. In addition, I found many exargerations in the page including the notion that Vogue's servers were down because Belen Echandia. In addition, based on the feedback read in the previous note, the writer has an obvious connection to the owner. I am a member of the Purse Forum and Belen Echandia is notorious in their attempts to control content about their product. There were many instances where the owners of the Purse Forum were considering closing the thread dedicated to the product because of the written harrassment from devotes. A quick search will not only display problems with quality and customer service but some members have even stated that if they didn't write postive reviews about the company, they would be prohibited from purchasing. ChecktheRhyme 18:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC) ( Signature added by Unixtastic as the signbot seems to be asleep. )
 * Comment I agree that this article is advertising not encyclopedic information. The original poster Parafianowicz of this article was linked to the article subject as proved most compellingly by his/her own statement on the picture submission page at File:Belen Echandia Logo.jpg . The text is very highly biased and possibly can't be correct in any case as quoting the real (ex-)customers of this company counts as original research. Most citations are references to interviews given by the company owner in possible violation of WP:SELFPUB. All discussions on this article are dogged by Findingtruths who claims to be the owner of this company. He/She has resorted to aggressive comments, sucking up to administrators, and legal threats to suppress any discussion or improvement of this article. This company is known by ex-customers as using high pressure sales and promising discounts in return for favors. I believe this company is getting customers to update this article with the information it wishes to see here in order to use Wikipedia as free advertising. Unixtastic (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment As evidence of the disconnect between the marketing image presented on this page and reality I suggest searching google for 'Belen Echandia quality'. The top link is www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/belen-echandia-c390678.html . I don't think this counts as a notable source but small companies just don't get customer comments published by notable sources. Unixtastic (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I believe the problem, predominantly, is the notability of the company - not that it provides a good service or not. A google search of "Belen Echandia" returns nothing but self-published sources and forum discussions - the latter being completely unreliable in most instances. I feel, reading the article and related files, that company maybe trying to use Wikipedia as a advertisment. Overall the article seems to violate WP:PROMOTION. -- George 2001 hi 19:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Keep Sources have established notability. -- George  2001 hi 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How did you miss the 10 online articles that show up in Google and are already used in the article? Are we using the same Internets or does your Internet tube have a hair ball in it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the sources were not in the article at that time? In any case, we should strive to maintain low tones. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhhh, that is irrelevant, they existed on the Internet, which the editor is claiming they could not find, they wrote that: "A google search ... returns nothing but self-published sources and forum discussions", which is incorrect and possibly deliberately deceptive to sway other voters. If I do the same search and find multiple references, I am left wondering why someone would make such a broad incorrect and deceptive statement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all, as people search differently. I generally initially search only google news and scholar, sometimes book. I generally don't search web in general since wading through the cruft is painful. But in any case, we clearly have good sources to work with now, and we're supposed to focus on content, not the contributor, and assume good faith. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't stating that as propaganda, please asumme good faith and some etiquette doesn't go a miss. I assume you believe I'm from the FBI, or MI5 to bring down this handbag company's article. But believe me I'm not. -- George 2001 hi 21:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Disclosure: I have edited this page, and made a large number of changes to the original article. Most of the content created by the original poster has been removed or rewritten by others users. The service allowing users to design their own handbag is mentioned as a product offering.  It is not called bespoke, nor does it use the name the company created, Belen Echandia Couture.  The entry no longer claims that this is a unique service.  The entry does not mention the quality of the product, though it may have in a past.  I have thus far, been unable to find sources about quality that would meet Wikipedia's standards, positive or negative.  An encyclopedia often contains things one doesn't like.  Just because one doesn't like something, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist with the encyclopedia. I believe this page should be given more time to be modified to meet the Wikipedia standards, rather than deleted. AuroraHcky (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This page was nominated for deletion on 02 November 2010 and the result of that was a keep Previous Deletion Page. The page has been edited since to address content issues.  Perhaps more time can be allowed to address content issues rather than deleting the page.  AuroraHcky (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Before that last keep this page was deleted 3 times as either blatant advertising or not notable. It hasn't changed in content nearly enough to be considered as anything but promotional material. Unixtastic (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In the AFD closers comment section of the Talk page, Davewild states that previous versions of the article meet the criteria for promotional, but the article was different. The article has been further changed since, working to meet the Neutral Point of View standards. AuroraHcky (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am the original author of this article. I am also relatively new to Wikipedia.  One of the fundamental reasons for this article being (re)published and (re)deleted 3 times is that my available time to volunteer toward Wikipedia is limited to an hour or two per week.  Therefore, I missed the window of opportunity to identify a Speedy Delete tag and place a Hold On tag in return.  I was able to catch the current publication of the article and add a Hold On tag in time.  The Hold On tag created more visibility for the page and prompted the collaborative approach from the general Wikipedia community that those watching this page have witnessed of late.  I am confident that the same collaborative effort would have been received had I caught a previous publications of this article and placed a Hold On tag in time.  I will also note that in each case I contact the administrator who deleted the page to seek their guidance and recommendations on how to improve the page for the next publication. Parafianowicz (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: For the simple fact that the article is now factual. It provides information about the company and its background and this is verifiable as far as I can tell. Side note: Interesting to note the fervor of the party promoting 'deletion'. Amzg
 * Comment There are 3 parties advocating deleting this at this time - ChecktheRhyme, Unixtastic, and George2001hi. Two of the parties advocating keeping this have 10 or less total edits with PeachAzalea having only a single edit, the keep vote on this page. Unixtastic (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator of this deletion, ChecktheRhyme, also has less than 10 edits. AuroraHcky (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: This page was voted a keep just a few days ago. There are many pages with similar content, and other wikipedians have voted that the new content on this page is notable and can be improved with edits, rather than deleted.  This brand appears to have many verifiable references.  Its website is full of reviews with pictures of customers, suggesting that it has a global reach. PeachAzalea (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to have sufficient coverage in notable fashion magazines. Current state of article is neutral enough. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding some of the other arguments here; the perceived quality of a company or product has no bearing on whether or not it meets Wikipedia's WP:Notability standards. I know nothing about this brand, but it doesn't matter if the quality is high or low; the question is whether or not the brand has non-trivial coverage in multiple WP:Reliable sources. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Most citations on this page came from this company itself in the form of magazine interview pieces which can't be taken as evidence of facts. Disregarding web forums and interview pieces there isn't substantial information in existence on this company. Unixtastic (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The interviews aren't being used to support statements like "this is the best brand in the world." They simply establish that it has been covered in a non-trivial fashion in mainstream, notable sources. There's nothing in the WP:Notability policy that negates interviews used for that purpose. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm pretty strict about companies needing reliable sourcing, and still this seems like an obvious keep to me. The above comment clearly misunderstands our notability standards.  The magazine pieces are, in fact, exactly what Wikipedia demands in the form of evidence to establish notability.  Vogue is clearly a high profile fashion magazine, as is Harper's Bazaar.  The articles appear to be standard articles for these magazines, and so there is no reason to discount them as being press releases.  As such, that alone establishes notability per WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY.  Furthermore, the article itself is not overly promotional (any more so than any other company article).  Sure, some of it could be cleaned up (I don't think the Media section is really necessary or appropriate), but the article sure seems like a keeper to me.  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You seem to be contradicting the discussion here. Interview pieces can only be used as evidence that something was said, not that what was said is a fact. Taking that into account everything in this article except about one line is 'X says ...'. The reason I support ChecktheRhyme's request to delete this whole article, which includes plenty of my own work, is that there are none to few neutral, non interview, sources of information that wikipedia would consider notable. Therefore I can't how to write this in any neutral way. Unixtastic (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're saying. None of the Vogue articles are interviews.  I don't know if the Harper's Bazaar is or not.  The Local is not, although it does include quotes.  The fact that your claims are very obviously false is troublesome.  Qwyrxian (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Pardon? As formatted on my web browser http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/2007-04/070426-some-echandia-evening.aspx contains 27 lines of text, of these 16 contain just quotes, 2 contain a mix of quotes and non-quotes, 11 contain no quotes. Of the 11 lines that contain no quotes around 5 are lead in or lead out text plus the non-quote text at the top is spread over more lines due to an image indenting that part of the text. I was told after asking that quotes can't be used as proof of facts, only as proof of claims and that those claims should be written as "Smith claims that...", or "Smith says that...". Apart from that why do you say 'I don't think the Media section is really necessary or appropriate'? Even though I do support deleting this article I did spend quite some time updating it and thought that section was useful. Unixtastic (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been requested by an admin that I post the following links here for consideration. Again I have a COI as rep of the company

You can review a full press page here: http://www.belenechandia.com/press.aspx?inturlid=8&intid=0 Although this is our website, the publications as you can see are genuine. Here are a selection of links:

Belen Echandia on CNN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmdRFrDEWH0

Vogue http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/090430-belen-echandia-launches-a-bespoke-s.aspx http://www.vogue.co.uk/beauty/news/080416-belen-echandia-angel-makeup-bag.aspx http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/2007-10/071005-the-echandia-allure.aspx http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/2007-04/070426-some-echandia-evening.aspx http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/2004-12/041209-hot-property.aspx

Harpers http://www.harpersbazaar.co.uk/fashion/belen-echandia-clutch-115399

Our story on HandbagDesigner 101 http://www.handbagdesigner101.com/designer/18/belen_echandia_cawthra_jackie

Hilary Magazine – story etc http://www.hilary.com/fashion/belen-echandia.html

You Tube – all independent reviews MOMFLUENTIAL – you tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siCyOGdu3To

www.momgenerations.com - you tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8O1RagMWps http://momgenerations.com/2009/10/fashion-advice-belen-echandia/

If I can be of further assistance or answer further questions about my own conduct here, please let me know. findingtruths (talk) 14.28, 14 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Findingtruths (talk • contribs)


 * Speedy keep. This nomination is a ridiculous abuse of process. The last AfD was closed as keep less than a week ago, on the grounds that the company was adequately notable, and any bias in the content could be cured by editing. This new nomination does nothing to address that: it is simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The anti-Belen lobby cannot simply wheel out a new SPA every few days to start a new AfD until they get the result they want. If you believe the last AfD was closed incorrectly, WP:Deletion review is the way to go, but if your only case is that you don't like the result, you will get short shrift there. Wikipedia is not the place to conduct your feud: whether Belen has an article is not determined by whether as a company it is good, bad, or indifferent, only by whether it meets the notability standard. JohnCD (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any recent notable press coverage? Now, I have no problem with the page because of the recent edits but I believe that the company should provide press coverage at least within the past year in order to be defined as notable. The CNN interview appears to be from 2005 and the other articles mentioned above are from 2009. I still believe that the content should be more scholarly in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChecktheRhyme (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * our rule is that notability is permanent. We are not a magazine reporting on only what's currently of interest, but a encyclopedia intended for permanence. If something was ever notable  in the past, it remains suitable for an article. A similar company with adequate sourcing that operated 100 years ago and is long since closed would be notable as well as this one, though less likely to find someone here wanting to write about it.     DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article can easily be modified to include "alternate opinions" if such are supported by reliable, verifiable, third party sources. The company being "notorious in their attempts to control content about their product" is of no relevance to a deletion discussion about this article. (It might be relevant to discussions about Wikipedia accounts which attempt to do so, but not to discussions about articles.) The company clearly gets enough coverage to be notable; it may not be scholarly coverage, but handbags aren't much of a scholarly subject. The Google results being drowned out by hundreds of mindless fashion blogs doesn't change the fact that some of the coverage is in many different mainstream publications. Amusingly, the company even gets name-checked in fiction . --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, AFD is not cleanup, and the current version of the article contains sufficient reliable sources (vogue is clearly a reliable source) to establish general notability. If a reliable source chooses to interview someone about a company they founded, that does count towards notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and close This is a single use account that lasered onto this article just to delete it. Someone should check the IP to find out which rival it is, or who the ex-employee is that feels aggrieved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I stumbled across this article because of a tread on Reliable sources, which is in my watchlist, and thought I'd voice my opinion, my account is hardly single-use - quite the opposite. Actually this is the first AfD I've voted in, but my other 2,600 edits are in other areas. Obviously other editors have taken your word for it, without verifying it - Mein Führer. -- George 2001 hi 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Park the ego at the door, User:ChecktheRhyme nominated the article. You can also skip the Reductio ad Hitlerum references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep This is a disruptive nomination contrary to to WP:DEL: "Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.". Colonel Warden (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the people heavily involved in trying to get this page deleted has requested a change of username. How does that work? I suppose there will be a public trace to previous usernames to prevent misuse? Findingtruths (talk 9.18, 16 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.100.97 (talk)


 * Lock the page or just delete it. This page has been subjected to too much COI, undue attention, confusion, and wikilawyering to be objective. I'd rather see my own work deleted than become an instrument of pain but as most people want to keep this I suggest protecting it and leaving it unedited for a few weeks to let things cool down. Unixtastic (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, as you've already !voted, would you please strike the delete portion of your common just above? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Done - Unixtastic (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, --Nuujinn (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I am the original publisher of this article. There has been 50+ edits since my last contribution.  The current article looks nothing like it did when originally published.  The COI tag was recently removed from the page.  I am not going to edit this article again because of COI.  Therefore, I no longer consider myself to be contributor, let alone a major contributor, to the page.  In my opinion, your "COI, undue attention, confusion, and wikilawyering" arguments that point to myself carry only very little/no gravity going forward. Parafianowicz (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Parafianowicz, I didn't accuse you personally of causing 'undue attention, confusion, and wikilawyering' around this article, just of posting it under COI. Unixtastic (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for clarifying. Given the amount of discussion surrounding this page, I felt it necessary to state my current position as the original author of this page.  Parafianowicz (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Why was the closing of this obviously disruptive nomination reversed? It was closed as a keep just a few days prior.  Its clear there are online references for the notability of the company.  Move for closure as speedy keep.  I'd close it myself but the New Editing Experience broke all my old tools. Syrthiss (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I reversed it because there is a good faith !vote for deletion. That makes speedy keep inapplicable.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A delete opinion that appears to be based on faulty information regarding coverage of the subject in reliable sources (tho in good faith, I agree). Syrthiss (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * At this point, no real harm in letting the discussion stay open a few more days. If another deletion debate is opened soon, though, that would clearly be disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.