Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bellroy


 * 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 no consensus. The arguments to keep are weak and have been refuted, but after two relists, there's not much enthusiasm to outright delete either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Bellroy

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:NCORP policy is not realized here. The coverage is not sig and independent. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Products,  and Australia.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The company has a lot of product reviews that will show up in a Google News search. Although not directly about the company, I do believe that many product reviews establishes notability. this one is a very indepth in Newsweek. Here are a few ilounge.com,9t5Toys, NBC 4i/,PC Magazine. Chelokabob (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note Chelokabob has been blocked as a sockpuppet.  HighKing++ 15:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Draft As of the sourcing right now, it's not a clear GNG pass, and the subject is not inherently notable under precedent. I think it should be developed more first to see what happens. I will say they make good wallets, I have one. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I was surprised there isn't more RS on the page already. I'm certainly aware of them. From a quick search I've added 5 RS (| Gear Mag; | another Gear Mag; | Executive Traveller mag; | Insider mag; and | Fox). I'm sure more RS would exist. Cabrils (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company.
 * Unless blatantly obvious, I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.
 * The topic is a company therefore we require references that discuss the *company* in detail. "Lots of product reviews" is not sufficient for establishing notability of a company.
 * As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two
 * WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or 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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
 * None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, none of the "reviews" provide more than a brief mention of the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 12:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep I started justifying a weak keep due to coverage I saw in Australian and UK media, although it all included quotes. Then I did a google book search and found a book that has a multiple page case study on them, which is in depth coverage in a reliable, secondary source. Marketing with Purpose, A C-Suite guide to being truly customer-centric, By Ric Navarro · 2018 CT55555 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC) (edited as explained below) CT55555 (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Hey, that's a self-published book, fails WP:RS. Also, "coverage" isn't one of the criteria, each reference to establish notability (and we need two) needs to meet both WP:ORGIND *and* WP:CORPDEPTH - can you link to the "coverage" you've located that meets the criteria?  HighKing++ 15:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw tons of mentions that I were overwhelmingly promotional and not editorial. If it's a self published book that is independent, would you say it suggests any notability? I may change my "keep" based on your answer, genuinly opened minded about your analysis here. CT55555 (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I should have explained, self-published material is generally not accepted as a reliable source and shouldn't even be used to support facts within an article - see WP:SELFPUB. Also FYI, be aware, there are two types of references. Any reliable source can (generally) can be used to support facts and other information within an article but sources that are used to support the topic's notability command extra checks. For companies/organizations the guideline is WP:NCORP. So while a reference may be used within an article without any issues, that doesn't mean that the same reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. In this case, there are some editors saying there is "coverage" but that isn't enough for notability is that same "coverage" relies entirely on information/announcements/PR generated by the company (which it invariably is). When I say "relies entirely", a simple test is that once you take out the information that is reused/reworded from company sources and quotes/etc provided by individuals connected to the company, whats left must meet WP:CORPDEPTH. None of the references that I've looked at meet these criteria. If you have found one, link it here and we can take a look.  HighKing++ 15:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your critique of my keep. I scan the AfD list frequently and jumped in here because I had heard of them and they seemed notable. A quick scan suggested they were, so I jumped in. I've not done any deep analysis, I think your critique of my keep is valid, I will strike it though, probably reverting to not opining further on this AfD. CT55555 (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: More discussion of the sources presented by Cabrils would be desirable. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added a few more RSs that discuss the company (not just wallet reviews): | anthill mag; The Age; | WWD; | Australian Financial Review. Cabrils (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep discounting product reviews, I think the recent sources found by Cabrils just passes for coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * analysis done as desired:

Small product listing or review. Not meeting WP:NCORP as this is not big analysis of company.

Link is not working only.

Same like first. Small product listing or review.

Link is not working

Link is not working

Link not working

Redirected to home page

Funding news. WP:ROUTINE

Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's the link for anthilloneline - it is based entirely on an interview with the founders. Here's the link for WWD - entirely based on an interview with Carter Weiss, a partner at their new backers Silas Capital, fails ORGIND. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep just enough to pass. Oaktree b (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * can you explain how? Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The scant product reviews and the sources as mentioned above by Cabrils, are enough in my opinion to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, so which references (and please identify the parts within those references) in particular are you saying meet the notability criteria as per WP:NCORP? Because of the three new sources provided by above, 's !vote to Keep is based on "coverage" (which isn't a criteria for notability) and your !vote is equally vague. The Anthill reference is based entirely on an interview with the founder and has no "Independent Content" as per the definition in WP:ORGIND and fails the criteria for notability. This from WWD is entirely based on an interview with Carter Weiss, a partner at their new backers Silas Capital, has no "Independent Content" and also fails ORGIND. Finally, this from AFR is a puff-profile based entirely on information provided by a co-founder Lina Calabria and other information provided by the company, also fails ORGIND. I'm happy to change my mind is you can identify the parts of those articles which you claim meets NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your interpretation of the definition of WP:ORGIND is overly narrow. A careful reading of the definition does not support your position. By your criteria any article that "only" interviews its subject would fail "Independent Content", which is absurd. A journalist (in a reliable publication) most certainly can write appropriate, "independent" articles on a single subject-- they are necessarily forming an opinion about the subject and phrasing the content of the article around quotes from the interviewee. Your subjective interpretation discounts all 3 articles that were recently added, even describing one as a "puff-profile". As a matter of common sense, those articles are in reliable publications and are substantive: they are clearly written because the company has become sufficiently notable in the eye of the author to justify a substantial article. You are entitled of course to your opinion but it is mischievous to blankly assert that the article fails as a matter of fact, when it is your subjective view. Raise it as your opinion by all means, but please be mindful of the distinction. Having said that, I agree that there isn't the coverage to make Bellroy a slam dunk pass, but there is nonetheless, in my view, sufficient to pass: hence my vote of a weak keep. Cabrils (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.