Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Completely Bare


 * 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. JForget 00:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Completely Bare

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY.  ttonyb (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - This type of fluff-and-flog commercial puffery has no place on WP. Carrite (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a hi-tech spa chain, which specializes in hair removal through waxing and laser treatments.  No indication of any historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Checking the references, one can see that 3 of the 5 given sources are invalid: the Yelp and Cosmopolitan links are user-submitted blog posts, and the CompletelyBare website is obviously self-referential. That leaves the Vogue and Allure links: would these not qualify under the given rules of WP:COMPANY? They are "independent, verifiable coverage in secondary sources"... but does that mask the plain fact that they themselves are puffery? This kind of logrolling is used over and over to justify keeping articles which are blatant WP:PROMO, while far worthier articles are condemned to deletion because they lack such "citations". I don't want to vote Keep here, but I'm not clear how to refute those two links. Should someone do so, I would be grateful and pleased, but the reason I post this comment now is to ask for the community's help in researching the larger issue of "sourcing". Reading through the Reliable sources/Noticeboard archives, I see several instances of Allure, Vogue and even Teen Vogue being discussed as though they were authoritative. Are they? It is difficult to judge purely from reading Reliable sources: it says "Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable". To my eye, magazines such as these contain a huge amount of unjournalistic writing, and their "coverage" frequently cannot qualify as "source material" even in a subject such as bodywaxing businesses. Can some nice editor give a wikilink to where this issue has been explained/discussed in depth? Thanks in advance! SteveStrummer (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * According to WP:CORP the standard for significance is fairly high. "When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."  (When I say "historical, technical, or cultural significance" for short, this is what I mean.)  Personally, I think that it ought to be made explicit that this kind of significance is in fact mandatory, at least when commercial businesses are subjects.  At any rate, I'm not sure that the sourceable facts about this business amount to "long term historical notability", which according to Jimmy Wales is the actual test. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but my question isn't about notability, it's about the validity of many types of citations. If someone were to successfully persuade the community that bodywaxing holds demonstrable effects on culture, society, etc., I would still like to know if (and why) "high quality" "mainstream news sources" like Vogue or Allure and others would be considered citational. I would be deeply grateful if you or someone else could guide me to a place where responsible editors have attempted to examine this question. This AfD manifests the question nicely, but I don't want to eat up too much space on the page so I won't add any more. But I'll be reading! Thanks to any who may respond with information. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - wax, wash, repeat. Article fails WP:N. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - To be sure, the current wording of the article needs a through going over as it veers more towards advertisement. And rather than taking a stance of "it must be non-notable" and looking for a way to refute coverage in reliable sources, one should actually review the amount and type of coverage and use that as a guide to come to a conclusion.  The [Vogue article] is a substantial writeup.  The [Cosmo article] is less substantial.  But additional research outside of what the article provides shows that they are covered in the [New York Times] as well.  The story has even made it to South Africa.  Also covered here. -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. The article in Vogue apparently shows that this establishment invented a kind of bikini wax that is less uncomfortable than others.  The other stories are similar.  That just might be one for the history books, though the current article itself is rather vague on what is apparently the achievement they're actually known for.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They are a high end bikini wax chain that's been relatively successful. Successful enough to be noted by multiple reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - does not meet notability guidlines at all!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.186.27 (talk) 18:44, 15 July 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.