Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SimplyShe


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 01:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

SimplyShe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a company which doesn't make an especially strong claim of notability per se; the most substantive claim here is the vague and unverifiable "a leading supplier". Not blatant enough an advertisement to warrant speedy under G11, but dancing perilously close to that line. The "references", further, are mostly to (a) primary sources such as the company's own press releases, (b) unreliable sources like non-notable blogs, or (c) blurbs in publications that would pass our rules if the articles were longer, but which are in reality far too brief to actually constitute substantive coverage of the company. Literally the only source that even approaches substantive coverage is #6 (SFGate), and that isn't enough to get a company over the notability bar if it's the only substantive source that can be provided. (In addition, there's a conflict of interest here, as a Google search reveals that the creator's username, User:Craigmclaughlin ex, matches the name of this company's CEO's husband ("I met Maria Peevey (CEO of SimplyShe) and Craig McLaughlin (CEO of extractable.com) both of San Francisco, Ca., as they were planning their wedding at The Parker Palm Springs".) As always, I know that COI isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself if the article can be cleaned up with better sourcing, but it doesn't help the article's case if there are other valid reasons for deletion in addition to the COI alone. As always, I'm happy to withdraw this if the article can be salvaged with better sourcing, but it's not entitled to stick around in this form. Delete if improvement isn't forthcoming. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - After doing my own searches, I agree with the nominator that I can find small mentions, but not substantial coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I concur with nominator's analysis. The SFGate article alone is not enough for notability, and there is nothing else. The article as written is practically incoherent - just TRY to figure out what they sell! - but that's not a reason for deletion. Lack of notability is. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 8 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.