Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Cruz Couture


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Sebastian Cruz Couture

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

essentially an advertisement for a remarkably trivial compoany; the refs are PR.  DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Simply an advertisement. Was originally illustrated with copy-vio images . Now simply a promotional piece. Sources are trivial including one of the partners talking about his company and how being really rich meant that they didn't have to worry about the banks - yeuck! Fails WP:GNG.  Velella  Velella Talk 13:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is a stub and is being worked on further. The brand is known and has been worn by a number of known public figures. I will suggest that contributions be made to make it much better rather than deleting it as it is a stub. Thanks.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Question for Tripplehaze7: Assuming for a moment that being worn by "known public figures" is of encyclopedic concern, just who are these people (according to specified, reliable, independent, published sources)? -- Hoary (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Answer to Hoary: According to what I have gathered from some featured articles and mentions in articles, they are a luxury brand that has been around since 2013. Thanks.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Tripplehaze7, you haven't even started to answer my question. -- Hoary (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hoary, please can you rephrase the question for me? Thanks.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my question, because the claim I was asking about is no longer in the article. has replaced it with "The brand's full head-to-toe looks have been worn by some famous place in Florida its establishment" (sourced not independently but instead to the company's own website). -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Thanks.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete "I help companies market their brand" (Suzie Ocie for Influencive) means "I write promotional text for money". Vexations (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Question for Vexations: How does that equate to being paid for money? Isn't that a bit too conclusive of you? Thanks.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Unless she meant "I volunteer to write promotional text". No, not at all. Vexations (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Vexations, so per your assumption, all her articles published are paid promotions. How do you prove this?--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , She admits it. The sources for this article are all promotional garbage, written by hacks, not real journalists. If Suzie ever writes a piece of pullitzer-prize winning investigative journalism, I bet she'll be adding something else than "I help companies market their brand" to her byline. Reputable news sources do not "help companies market their brand". Vexations (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Vexations what basis are you saying all the sources were written by hacks? Are you saying Suzie is a hack? Thanks.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment- this becoming an unhelpful "ad hominem" argument. When digging a hole, it is wise to know when to stop.  Velella  Velella Talk  13:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , well, it's pretty simple: When I wrote "hack", I meant that in the sense of "working for hire especially with mediocre professional standards" or "a person who works or writes purely for the purpose of earning money." was written by Suzie Ocie, whose bio says: " am a women’s rights activist, running junkie, and eternal marketing student. I help companies market their brand to millennials and gen z. ..."  is a press release. Note the mention of "vast high-profile media coverage". was written by Saqib Malik, the "Chief editor" of clout, who "is an established technical expert with 9+ years of background in Web Development and Digital Marketing. His passion for helping people in all aspects of online marketing flows through in the expert industry coverage he provides..."  was written by Cormac Reynolds, for the Los Angeles Post-Examiner, who are reluctant to tell us who they are, per  "So who are we? Stay tuned." If you do your own search for Cormac Reynolds you'll find several people by that name. None of them is a real journalist, but we do find a "Content Marketer and SEO Link Builder" who has worked for the Baltimore Post Examiner, the parent company of our source.  barely mentions the subjec. It doesn't come close to what WP:NCORP requires. Best to just Ignore it. Now what's really interesting is the degree to which these tree article by Ocie, Malik and Reynolds, are the same. They copy each other or a template that was provided to them. That's how these PR/SEO writers operate; they don't investigate and do their own reporting. So yeah, hacks is a fair and accurate description.
 * Vexations this explanation is well understood. Thank you. Kindly take a look at the sources I dug up too. Thanks.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Velella well understood.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

https://www.thedrum.com/profile/mdo-s-de-rl/news/a-road-to-success-in-the-fashion-industry http://www.publicitymag.com/prom-contemporary-fashion-trends/ https://burningbowtie.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/style-essentials-sebastian-cruz-couture/ https://bespokeandbeloved.com/blog/whiteandivorysuitsandseparates https://everyonesamodel.com/2014/11/10/power-of-women-canadian-breast-cancer-foundation-with-sebastian-cruz-couture/ https://lovestoriestv.com/wedding/fashion-designer/groom-or-bride-suit-designer/sebastian-cruz-couture/ Do these convince you enough? Thanks.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Vexations here are some sources I dug up: https://www.essence.com/how-to/style-your-guy-essence-live-video/
 * Delete - not a notable company, sources mentioned in this AfD don't meet standards. YouTube videos and self-published blogs don't really get us close to notability. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Don't waste our time suggesting that we consider sources that are written by "MDO S. de R.L. Full digital/nomad Marketing Agency". Read WP:NCORP and provide only sources that meet those requirements. No press releases, self-published sources and blogs. Vexations (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7A_-ERpiPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq9k8YGzMF0&t=7s Are these enough to convince you please? Thanks.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Vexations I also came across these TV shows on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-r0faiWlV4&t=12s
 * Delete as per nom. Fails notable VViking Talk Edits 12:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as this article is a stub and needs further improvement on it. —AlikotoSam (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as half the history is about a machine the company bought, and the last sentence makes no sense. I consider this a classic case of WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or move to draft. Even has conceded that further work is needed to bring it to an acceptable state. Maproom (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's very little of the article; what have been proposed as additional sources aren't worth consideration. -- Hoary (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and WP:NOT. Without question, this appears to be WP:UPE. John from Idegon (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * delete this is obviously a spammy paid for piece with no substance and exactly 0 reliable sources here or elsewhere. Praxidicae (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 21:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per HighKing. Nothing to indicate it clears the hurdle of notability at present, and nor am I able to find anything. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPAM, per . Run of the mill by any measure, the sourcing is just terrible. In 2007, we could have excused this mess, but in 2020, everybody knows generally about Wikipedia requirements. WP:SALT. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2020 (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.