Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bikini Luxe


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Bikini Luxe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG and no independent sources are available whatsoever. Article claims features in a couple of reputable magazines, though these claims seem unfounded: Cosmo on Google (Cosmo's search is useless...), shape.com, Shape on Google. Also Candice Galek 1 and 2.  Nik the  stunned  09:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you have to say about sources such as Yahoo, travel weekly, digital journal, ABC (dead link), CBS. They are not notable?. --Karlhard (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct, they are all press releases, which don't count towards notability per WP:ORGIND. Press releases are written by the company and so are not independent. (Why would you include a dead link also? That doesn't help at all...)  Nik the  stunned  15:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Found multiple third-party sources that are definitely not press releases:   . — Code  Hydro  16:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The first is a wordpress blog and so isn't reliable (also does read *exactly* like a press release despite your assertion!). The last is also a blog, if paid, per the disclosure. Of the other two, simandan.com doesn't look remotely reliable (looks like a random personal page) and noragouma.com fails WP:ORGIND for consisting solely of an interview (it's not independent if the information comes straight from the company owner). All of these look promotional also, given the wording etc.  Nik the  stunned  16:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Most information on any organization can be traced to the organization itself. WP:Independent does not require the information to be independent, only that the source deciding to publish the information decides that it is worth publishing independently. Press releases fail because those are published automatically and without editorial review. Interviews however do require the third party to ask questions and then decide if it's worth talking about them. While the sources I provide may sound promotional, the most important point is that the decision to publish them is not in the hands of the company. Heck, if I like a product, I will rant and rave reviews about it even if the company doesn't pay me a dime. — Code  Hydro  16:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So by my count we've one ref of dubious significance, doesn't sound like widespread coverage to me.  Nik the  stunned  16:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Have expanded the article third party sources, , and in addition to the ones mentioned in my previous source. Note that while the first of this second set is a blog, it does bill itself as an "independent fashion blogger" at the bottom of the page. Admittedly many of these sources are popular blogs, such is normal when dealing with relatively new phenomenon as it takes time for more traditional sources to catch up. I would certainly be open to bringing this article back to AfD in a year to review its notability in other sources. — Code  Hydro  17:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BITE. As a final note, the original author only joined Wiki in September of this year but has already editted over 300 unique pages . As per WP:Bite, we have to be more lenient on notability in order to avoid discouraging new and potentially valuable members of our community. — Code  Hydro  18:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability is not going to change in that time - articles should be deleted if they fall outside of policy - no amount of edits done will make these three companies notable, so why wait a while? The new editor is clearly competent enough to create some decent articles, I went through and fixed up one so I'm fully aware of that. Doesn't change matters for these three, however.  Nik the  stunned  18:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Userfy (!vote) is much preferred over deletion for novice editors, though I still think there is enough evidence for a keep here. — Code  Hydro  18:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * One ref (of dubious significance or not) is not enough per say it's "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources", unless you've some RS you've yet to add to the page.  Nik the  stunned  18:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Which it doesn't meet - I've seen no evidence of ""Significant coverage" [which] addresses the topic directly and in detail", per the above.  Nik the  stunned  09:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as meets GNG, Sure the sources aren't exactly spectacular but you work with what you have .... Deleting it IMHO seems pointless, I think the noms had to much to drink over the xmas period .... or perhaps I'm pissed hence this !vote .... Who knows eh – Davey 2010  Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 12:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Welp I guess I'll withdraw the AfD then, even though I do still think this fails GNG I'm clearly in the minority.  Nik the  stunned  16:11, 26 December 2014 (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.