Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childs Farm


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Childs Farm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. " Created by SPA, it was deprodded by User: Willie d troudour (<10 edits total) who left the following comment at it's talk: "This article meets the Wikipedia:General notability guideline because of multiple independent third party publications discussing the subject on the page and some publications are not listed.". No specifics examples where given, and outside, all I see is mentions in passing or coverage in niche publications/press releases/PR media/etc. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think it just barely meets GNG, with profiles on the company, its products and on her (since it's basically about how she created the company), , , , , , ,   —Мандичка YO 😜 02:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's review:
 * coverage of innovative advertising by major British newspaper, The Telegraph
 * article about company winning an award by Junior Magazine (magazine). The article seems like a PR piece, it's short, and full of marketing speak ("an award-winning and affordable collection of ", "the first, and only, baby & children’s skincare range to make the following claims: dermatologically & paediatrician tested and approved and suitable for newborns & upwards", etc.) . The magazine describes itself as a " glossy, family lifestyle website" that went out of print in 2013 but maintains an online presence. By 2014, when it covered CF, it was only an online portal. Seems like a niche, non-RS source, and written like a PR/marketing/ad piece.
 * a companion to the above, JM interviews DF founder. Outside being regional/niche, it is is also not about the company, but it's founder, and mentions the company only in passing.
 * a profile of the company founder in a regional UK portal (Hampshire Life, www.hampshire-life.co.uk). Outside being regional/niche, it is is also not about the company, but it's founder, and mentions the company only in passing.
 * An ad for the products, in the form of an "article", appearing in "THE WIDEST DISTRIBUTED COMPLIMENTARY LIFESTYLE MAGAZINE IN SUSSEX". Another niche (distributed "throughout the county"), PR coverage, an ad masquerading for an article.
 * Seems like a Czech equivalent of those British PR niche pieces. In fact, I think it's a shop.
 * Another PR "buy this product". It's an ad for a single product, "Childs Farm Top-To-Toe Cleaning Kit, £9.95 www.childsfarm.com", in the form of profile of favorite products selected for the British edition of the Vogue_(magazine). It does not discuss the company, it is just fawning over one of their products.
 * Similar coverage, a paragraph inviting people to buy "Bath and hair products for kids, from £4.69, from Childs Farm". Published in a blog/lifestyle section of a major British newspaper, The Guardian, but of dubious reliability. Anyway, it's coverage of the company's product, not the company.
 * So, User:Wikimandia, I'd appreciate if you'd tell me how those sources pass GNG/Company notability for independent, major (non-niche, non-regional, non-passing) coverage. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Because I don't agree with your assessment of these refs secretly being ads, PR pieces, blah blah blah. The Q&As with her are primarily about the company and how it got started, and you might want to head on over to WP:CORP because your standard requiring "major (non-niche, non-regional)" sources is not in the guideline at all, and, in fact, appears to be something you've invented to entertain us. The requirement for sources are that they be reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. There is nothing that says coverage in a niche publication is not acceptable (especially if you have niche product, duh!); nor that local or regional publications cannot count as a reliable source. Per WP:AUD, you can't have an article with only local sources, but that's not the case with this article. So that's how I say these sources pass GNG. Also the Czech one is not a store but a women's portal and magazine; they sell a few products but they do not sell Childs Farm products. Hopefully that satisfies your questions. —Мандичка YO 😜 04:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I could argue that you are confusing GNG and CORP, but let's not split words or guidelines. And yes, I should have said clearly non-RS, rather than niche.  Now, please explain which references here satisfy, in your view, our policies. "This article satisfies WP:CORP criteria...". But if you think it does because it has coverage in reliable sources, we have to discuss the said sources. You haven't' so far, outside of arguing that the interview with the CEO is not passing coverage. Even if I agree (and I am not sure I do), I do not believe that Junior Magazine (magazine) is reliable; it seems WP:QUESTIONABLE ("promotional in nature"). Ditto for all other sources here; they seem to fail RS. Because, in simple terms, they are PR spam. Look at those publications. They are never critical of the products they cover; they get paid to produce article-like ads. The Sussex magazine is even given away for free (and don't tell me you think the companies which front the funds do so without expecting a quid pro quo in exchange). Let me repeat: having reviewed the sources, I find them unreliable (poor fact checking, likely COI in the form of positive, paid-for coverage), and focusing on the company in passing (even you haven't presented any in-depth sources about it, outside the PR-like piece, not too long btw, in the form of ).  Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages. This company hasn't attracted any serious coverage (it paid for some niche PR article-likes features). And short coverage of the company's marketing campaign in a reliable newspaper does not change the situation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article really reads like an ad. The copy is full of press-release material. The stand-out material for me is the production company credit, but the article only tosses that in as an after thought. The article wants, I think, to sell shampoo, and not inform a reader. That's bad. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as promotional/advertising: The theoretical approach to deletion debates where one keeps if the subject could be discussed really abuts reality here, because we wouldn't keep an ad. Advertising is a deletion criterion, and this article is advertising. As I noted above, the most notable aspects of the company are not discussed and the product line up and wonderful child-friendly motives are. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete We don't host advertisements even if what is being advertised is notable. Thincat (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as advertisement. I looked at many of the references - The Junior Magazine is put out by a marketing firm. The Daily Mail article (DM is a RS) is just a mention. #10 is a PR firm. #11 "award" is one of those "you pay to win" awards. #16 is a two-person site/blog. etc etc LaMona (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2015 (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.