Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ormonde Jayne


 * 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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Ormonde Jayne

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete Zero indications of notability. A run-of-the-mill company that produces perfume. References are (for the most part) not intellectually independent, relying on interviews and quotations from company sources and therefore fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 14:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep To me a solid pass of GNG, both when I began the entry and when I reviewed it today, adding some further sources. The brand has coverage in major outlets in US, UK, Italy, India and the UAE (and that's just what I got without really stretching my language skills—there looks to be more especially in Russian but I’m hopeless with Cyrillic), from at least 2010 2008 through this week. The assertion these sources are not intellectually independent is contradicted by, for instance, the product reviews in different outlets which often give quite different descriptions of the same fragrance, meaning they’re giving independent assessments and not reciting PR copy. The fact of also having interviewed the company is not disqualifying; if it were, we'd have to base the encyclopedia entirely on "Frank Sinatra Has a Cold". Innisfree987 (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * any chance you could post links to the references you consider meet the criteria for establishing notability? Also, the fact of having interviewed the company as a major part of the article is, on most occasions, a sign that the article is not intellectually independent and while it is generally true, is not universally true. Be aware also that the guidelines for companies contained in WP:NCORP are a little more stringent when it comes to finding references to establish notability.  HighKing++ 15:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Will be difficult at the moment as I’m presently limited to mobile and UX would make duplicating the referencing work take more time than I’ve got. (Specifically my WP editing window reloads, and erases all my work, when I toggle between it and another tab—e.g. to collect reference details—on my phone. It’s fun.) Until back on desktop, I’d refer ivoters to the sources abovementioned (most of them referenced with working links in the entry) and then I notice more coverage via a GoogleBooks search as well (which makes sense, I’d forgotten I knew of at least a couple books that discuss the line.) Will add as I am able. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Have expanded entry with info from six more sources by five authors (well, six authors but a pair of co-authors did two of the books, so those two are not intellectually independent of one another—altho in this case it’s maybe complicated since those authors do sign their reviews individually within co-authored book—anyway, five or six more pieces of coverage toward notability, depending on how you count.) Innisfree987 (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This article appears to have many notable sources such as Newsweek, Evening Standard. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Given nontrivial sources found in Newsweek, T Magazine (New York Times) , Evening Standard amongst others, I don't see how it would not qualify under WP:CORPDEPTH. Hzh (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: non-trivial sources for this niche frangrance house; some critical reception present from notable personalities in the industry. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 10 June 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.