Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naked Group


 * 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. Enigmamsg 05:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Naked Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotion based on non-independent promotional sources, Conflict_of_interest, WP:UPE SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Ref 1. No mention of "Naked Group".
 * Ref 2. No mention of "Naked Group.
 * Ref 3. Not independent, no prose, just a directory source.


 * Maybe Refs 1 and 2 are supposed to support "Naked Stables" or whatever the company created by Grant Horsfield (at Afd)? In any case, these references are advertorials featuring interview quotes of Grant Horsfield the company CEO, and are not independent.


 * Clearly, the company and CEO are actively engaged in covert advertising. See Conflict_of_interest.  Both Grant Horsfield and Naked Group are WP:CORP-failing covert advertising and, noting also WP:UPE, should be deleted with prejudice.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 07:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 07:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Leeallenmack (talk&#32;• ::contribs) has made other edits and additions to WP outside this topic.
 * Delete as not meeting WP:NCORP but I am not sure that the article creator has been doing this covertly as I had no difficulty whatsoever in finding the COI. I think this is a case of good faith COI editing. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. The author may very well have innocently and faithfully accepted the company's native advertising.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename/Edit Respecting the fact that all articles will stand or fail on their own merits and acknowledging that this deletion is not primarily because of COI suspicions, the question is do these references withstand WP scrutiny as "significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources". In the WP guidelines New York Times is given as inherently "reliable, independent, and secondary". I would put the Wall Street Journal in that category as well, as I would The Guardian. Is it significant though? I would argue yes. Both of these articles situate naked as one of the important progenitors of green tourism in China. Neither of these are fancy hotel reviews, but instead researched pieces by credible authors. The Bloomberg article which references naked Hub, which is the other main business arm of the naked Group, also fulfill the criteria of "reliable, independent, and secondary". It is a significant piece reporting a major acquisition reported from multiple sources. I acknowledge that in the article it was not made clear the relationship between the "naked Group" and "naked Retreats" and "naked Hub". WP is clear in the policy of no inherited notability. I would therefore recommend that this piece be re-edited as just pertaining the resorts business, and allowed to stand on its own in that regard. Leeallenmack (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC) — Leeallenmack (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * when you say this deletion is not primarily because of COI suspicions does the use of the word suspicions mean that you are denying having a COI? Dom from Paris (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The deletion discussion is already agreed to depend on whether the links fulfill the WP criteria for notability. Whether you believe there is COI is immaterial.


 * There are nine references, and I have taken the view that the top three are the best references for attesting notability, and that if they fail, then all the rest fail too. Perhaps you can point out a different set of three references that are all of independent, secondary, reliable, and cover the topic in depth?
 * By independent, I expect that the information presented in the reference did not come straight from the company or its CEO or an employee. This rules out interviews. I also expect that the commentary is critical (which does not mean negative), and includes mentions of strengths and weaknesses, and non-condescending mentions of competitors.  If the coverage is 100% positive push, with either silence or condescension on competitors, then I call it a secretly paid piece.  See Conflict_of_interest.  This is very common, and I suspect this is exactly what we are looking at here, in the sources, even if you are not personally connected.  "New York Times" and "Wall Street Journal" do not equate to "independent.
 * Secondary source. It must make commentary, not just repeat facts.  I look for adjectives that are clearly the opinion of the writer.
 * Reliably. You seem to have that one OK, these are reputable publishers.
 * Cover the topic in depth. I expect two running sentences speaking directly to the topic, not a mention of the topic in relation to a different focus of the paragraph.  Your sources are lengthily dedicated to the topic, which is overkill for "in depth" and is typical of a paid promotional piece.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Disagree with your assessment. WSJ and The Guardian have strict editorial policies and anything paid is clearly marked as such. These articles are not hotel reviews and they are not interviews. I do agree that these articles do not mention naked Group, only naked Retreats and the relationship between the two is not clearly established.Leeallenmack (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If WSJ and The Guardian make a story directly from company material, such as from CEO or communications staff interviews or press releases, then they are not a third party source. This is the case with the first sources, and you have failed to specify better sources. Naked Group? Naked Retreats?  Are they not synonymous?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP. Sourcing is routine notices, passing mentions and WP:SPIP. Promo 'cruft & likely UPE, based on behavioural evidence, including at this AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete-Per SJoe and nom.Fails the rigorous standards of NCORP. &#x222F; WBG converse 05:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I am also nominating the following related pages:
 * Both of these pages are created by people with screamingly WP:APPARENTCOI that is being resolutely undisclosed; not to mention the battering of this AfD.
 * Both article subjects are on the border, generally falling on the "not" side with respect to NCORP, and both have typical characteristics of promotion; the sourcing on naked Hub is almost entirely press releases or chunalism.  In these situations we generally delete and salt as Wikipedia cannot and will be used as a vehicle for promotion, especially by people who flaunt the PAID policy and COI guideline. And it is not worth the community's time to fight against the kind of behavior to maintain the neutrality, when the subject is borderline notable.  These pages teach readers nothing.
 * Am pinging those who have !voted with respect to the bundled nomination: User:SmokeyJoe, User:Domdeparis, User:Leeallenmac, User:K.e.coffman, User:Winged Blades of Godric Jytdog (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Am pinging those who have !voted with respect to the bundled nomination: User:SmokeyJoe, User:Domdeparis, User:Leeallenmac, User:K.e.coffman, User:Winged Blades of Godric Jytdog (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete No indications of notability, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 10:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blatant undisclosed paid editing in violation of our Terms of Use. Wikipedia does not tolerate advertising of any kind. Native advertising like this is potentially illegal in United States law, the law that governs Wikipedia, and we absolutely cannot permit it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Clarify, as I hadn't understood that there was no separate discussion for Naked Hub: delete that too, for exactly the same reason. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2018 (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.