Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Squatch


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Squatch

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

Requested at WT:AFD. Rationale: The article reads like an ad, even after I removed a lot of stuff and rewrote it. It was significantly worse before, and reeked of self promotion. In addition to this the sources itself are a bit spotty. Not to mention the company itself isn't that notable aswell. NotAGenious (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. NotAGenious (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  11:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe the article is in a state which is improvable and could probably meet guidelines with some editing. Endersslay (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Probably enough in the article, and these reviews of their soap, . Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nomination 14.200.225.254 (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - for now, unless someone improves it, then I wouldn't object to keeping it 108.49.72.125 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * should someone relist this again, or close this? its been around a week since someone last responded to this 108.49.72.125 (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA  tlak 07:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I added some information and references. I think it's WP:GNG but could use more work. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. Opinion is divided. It would be nice to get an assessment of the article sources and anything else that has come up. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. If somebody wants to use reviews of their soap as a measure of notability, this would go towards notability of the product, not towards notability of the company. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 13:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * opinion still divided, relist again or close? 108.49.72.125 (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep per table. Yes, two is the bare minimum needed, but this is just what I was able to most easily find. More generally, this is really not the type of company the stringent standards of WP:NCORP is meant to include; it has multiple products which meet GNG, and there are plently of genuinely independent (i.e. not reconstitued from press releases) primary sources to use for verification. Mach61 18:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Response Thank you for the analysis but you need to correctly apply GNG/WP:NCORP criteria. The Marketing Dive reference says very clearly that the Marketing Dive was provided with company data and the article goes on to quote extensively from company sources. There is no in-depth "Independent Content" in this reference and it relies entirely on data/comments from the the company itself - fails both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The Forbes reference and also relies entirely on information provided by the company, both in a previous interview and in an email. Also fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 18:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @HighKing using primary sources is what defines a secondary source. The relevant criterion of ORIGIND states that it is meant to exclude sources which lack original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject, which is applicable to both sources (the Marketing Dive source includes orignial analysis of TikTok as an advertising platform). Mach61 23:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You appear to be conflating the type of source (primary or secondary) with the quality of the content. You've reproduced a part from ORGIND. Immediately preceding that quote is another qualification such that we do not regard content which was initially created/produced/articulated by the company/execs/customer/related party that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties as meeting the criteria for establishing notability. As per WP:CORPDEPTH, whatever independent content exists in the article must *also* be provide an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the *company*.
 * The Marketing Dive article relies *entirely* on regurgitating the topic company's information and quotes and contains no in-depth information *on the company* which isn't sourced back to the company. You say it contains original analysis on TikTok as an advertising platform - two points, first this article isn't about TikTok, second all of the relevant TikTok information related to the company originated from the company as you can tell from the quotations.
 * I've also said why the Forbes article fails - pretty much the same reasons. In summary, it's a 16-sentence long puff profile mostly about the founder and includes only basic generic information on the company (mostly its funding).  HighKing++ 15:34, 6 March 2024 (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.