Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FabFitFun


 * 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

FabFitFun

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

Unremarkable, WP:SERIESA, WP:NCORP not met. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:CORPDEPTH for rationale too.  All the coverage is routine.  FalconK (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - A close reading of WP:NCORP says A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Every single item is sourced with reliable secondary sources, including Variety, Forbes , The National Law Review , Insider , multiple pieces in TechCrunch, Observer and multiple pieces in Los Angeles Business Journal. A complete picture of the company is provided with the sources. Clearly meets the stringent requirements of WP:NCORP. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Wiki-lawyering aside, it's hard to argue that a business with 2 million customers isn't notable. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - This looks pretty well sourced and appears to meet WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  17:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply, not just GNG guidelines. I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability. The ones mentioned above do not contain any in-depth "Independent Content" that didn't originate from a source unaffiliated with the company. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 16:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read above where I showed how WP:NCORP is met, using a direct reading of the guideline. When you do WP:BEFORE, also look at what links here to see the article's integration with the rest of the encyclopedia. There's other related info showing the company's impact on society, but since there are some who devalue social media-related content as not demonstrating notability, I'm going to leave it out, and not ref stuff. The article is just fine as it is, with just the basics.  Its coverage, as highlighted above, meets both notability guidelines WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. TechnoTalk (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, as TechnoTalk's arguments make sense as there's WP:SIGCOV on the company. SWinxy (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. After reviewing the sources provided by TechnoTalk, I am not seeing a good argument for deletion. The sources are in-depth and independent and satisfy the criteria at both WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. I honestly am perplexed on how an experienced reviewer like HighKing could come to the conclusion above. I’d be hard pressed arguing deletion using a detailed source analysis because the sources are strong (by lined authors in notable publications that are not primarily interviews, but provide original analysis and are therefore independent and in-depth).4meter4 (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2022 (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.