Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goddessy Organics


 * 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   redirect to Stephanie Adams. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Goddessy Organics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertising. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 23:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note:  This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note:  This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note:  This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Lancome only has 8 references, none of which come from major sources. Clinique only has 5, but 3 really because 2 are from its own website. The Goddessy Organics article has 20 references, all of which prove the company's notability and come from sources that are independent of the subject's corporate websites. References are directly from Conde Nast, Style Blazer, Price of Business, Boston Edge, Yahoo Finance, etc. and are objective third party articles, not from Goddessy and not Goddessy advertising. Sohoforgotpassword (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFF. We are not evaluating this article in comparison to others. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Wholly non-notable brand, poor ref's, likely WP:COI - Wikipedia is not a business directory and promotion like this is unacceptable the panda ₯’  10:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no "likely" conflict of interest. I have zero interest in the company. My interest are my contributions to Wikipedia. Sohoforgotpassword (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to Stephanie Adams. The sources make a good case for notability of the founder, but not for the company. My assessment of the sources is below. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * non-notable blog containing a quote from the founder
 * local-region AM radio interview
 * blog about domain names, not relevant
 * Parade magazine - trivial mention
 * Net worth - niche publication, article about founder, trivial mention of company
 * StyleBlazer - another niche publication, mention of 1 product in a longer list
 * Fashion Affair magazine cover art - does not demonstrate significant coverage, and makes no sense as a reference
 * Edge - trivial mention in a list
 * LaSplash - this is an advertisement, not coverage
 * goodenoughmother - interview with founder, not coverage of company
 * sunnyskyz - self-published blog article posted by founder
 * LaSplash, again - description of one product in a larger list, essentially trivial mention
 * madamenoir - coverage of founder, not the company
 * Your Health Journal - interview with author, no coverage of company
 * Yahoo Finance - coverage of founder, not company
 * New Telegraph - 1 quote from founder among over 100 quotations, trivial mention


 * Redirect to Stephanie Adams. A small mention is already in the Adams article, and that's pretty much all that's needed. -- Whpq (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Stephanie Adams; I went through the sources and agree entirely with Amatulic. --bonadea contributions talk 20:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect - absolutely no justification for a stand-alone promo-spam article. One of the interviews with the subject's owner says it all - "Adams has been featured in and on numerous magazine covers" - she has; not the company (which doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH). Banner's concerned are well-founded and Amatulić's analysis is comprehensive.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as G11 and redirect to Stephanie Adams]. --Bejnar (talk) 03:41, 11 July 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.