Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hockerty


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Hockerty

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

Moved to mainspace by a new user. Reads like promotion Benedikt Gerendeg (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. MER-C 18:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article was made by a sockpuppet so that doesn't help. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * no reason who is the author. the notability is being checked here. 77.251.59.79 (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * it's a red flag at least. Oaktree b (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The French articles look like PR stuff, from a website called masculin.com, which is mostly pop-up ads and click bait stuff. Feels promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all I find are articles about how to "Look Like Gatsby" or wedding attire this or that, listing one or two products by the company. Nothing about them. Even limiting it to .ch websites, it's all only their own that comes up. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per numerous reliable sources with in-depth coverage and the notability established by independent reviews or mentions in national relialbe newspapers and magazines. Here I picked some: La Vanguardia - gives a report on Hockekrty and its history, El Periódico de Aragón made a good coverage on company in 2011 which was named back than as tailor4less ; Expansión (Spanish newspaper) analyses the startups and chose Hockerty as one of examples; French magazine Masculin made a deep review of company and its products: ; another review on Modern Fellows ; a decent coverage on Fashin Network , Okdiario provides a good coverage ; ABC (newspaper) praises the company saying “it’s one of the firms that does it best” ; Vanity Fair (magazine) gave a coverage on Toledo shoe production  having featured the company as it's favorite week choice. However the page has many promo blogs/site which must me removed. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please point to any of those references (paragraph number?) that contains "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 20:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam, see Sockpuppet investigations/Ejikela. Not a good faith contribution to the encyclopedia. MER-C 15:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as it was undisclosed paid-for spam. Not only that, none of the sources meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Rather than showing an analysis of all the sources in the article (overkill) I'll focus on just those put forward by 多少 战场 龙 above.
 * This from La Vanguardia is a puff piece. All of the information has been provided by the company and their execs. Every paragraph attributes a quote to one of the founders. There is no Independent Content clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company, fails ORGIND
 * This from El Periodico is based entirely on an interview with the founder, fails ORGIND
 * This from Masculin.com is primarily a review of their made-to-measure shoes and the website configurator. This website also produced a similar review of other clothes and although the website accepts advertising and affiliate marketing, it is unclear which parts are truly independent. Putting that aside for now, the article in question fails NCORP criteria. It has a small paragraph (2 sentences) in the opening section that simply regurgitates the standard description of the company (i.e. Created by 3 friends in 2008...). There is no in-depth information here *about the company*. Fails CORPDEPTH.
 * This in Modern Fellows is a puff piece that is marked as "including affiliate links". It is essentially paid marketing, fails ORGIND. Even if we ignore that, this article also regurgitates the standard company origin story and then focuses on a product, not the company. Also fails CORPDEPTH.
 * This in okdiario.com is another puff piece, very similar to the piece in La Vanguargia (and only a month between them in date). It also relies on information/interview with one of the co-founders and does not have any in-depth "Independent Content" on the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. For example, the announcement about $20m in future sales appears in this announcement.
 * This from Sumum is another puff piece, fails for the same reasons as above (information from the company and execs), fails ORGIND
 * This from Vanity Fair is a mere mention with a total of 4 sentences, not enough to meet CORPDEPTH.
 * The references are advertorial and/or purr pieces. None meets NCORP criteria.  HighKing++ 20:12, 12 December 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.