Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy John (apparel company)


 * 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 no consensus. No consensus for a particular outcome has occurred in this discussion. North America1000 02:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Tommy John (apparel company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Simply promotion. There is no objective commentary. The article has been reference bombed with concealed and unconcealed promotional sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The only connected article is Tom Patterson (entrepreneur), the company's founder and CEO, and that article is only connected to this one. That article only has references that I read as all advertorials, not as bad as the sources for this article, but still dubious.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - it has peacock-like language, possibly due to PR types, but by way of coverage, it appears to pass as a notable company. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Bearian, can you point to two sources attesting to notability per WP:CORP? I think every source fails. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed all the sources and commented below. I'm also interested on which two pass the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing ++ 12:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 19:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist
 * Keep per Bearian. There's solid press coverage: a Forbes article that devotes a paragraph or two to the company, a New York Times blog article, two Business Insider articles, and one in Men's Health. Sure, the tone is bad, but that's a matter for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your not bothered that the tone *is* toned down from these references? That these are blatant sponsored informercials. No objectivity or critical commentary, just hard sell. "Could This Be the World’s Greatest Underwear?". "We tested this company's underwear, and it is perfect for active guys". "An up-and-coming retail brand is convincing men to spend $48 on underwear"? Really?  This is not encyclopaedic content, it is promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good reviews are not the same as promotion. Are you seriously accusing Forbes and Business Insider of shilling? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, none of those references meet the guidelines for establishing notability. I've outlined why they don't below. -- HighKing ++ 12:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why these reputable publishers are doing it is not the question. Did you read their text? No depth at all about the product, or the company, or its marketing, just repetition of the company promotion lines, even embedding their marketing video! --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete After a review of references, they all fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND since the references rely almost exclusively on data/information generated by the company or company officers. Edit !vote changed, see below. The apparelmag reference fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND as it relies entirely on quoting the founder. The argusleader article fails for the same reason. The forbes article, again, for the same reason (it even prints the company's statistics from their "Valentine's Survey). The cbs news article, same reason. The underwearexpert article, prints verbatim an interview and therefore fails for the same reason. The nypost article fails for the same reason. The WSJ article for the same reason and is even highlighted that this is simply a "news roundup". This CNBC article also relies entirely on Patterson. The Forbes article fails for many reasons - one being that the article is not "published" by Forbes but by a contributor with the byline "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own" but the main one being that more than 50% of the mention is taken up with a quote from a board member and investor. The nytimes blog post fails because blog posts are not regarded as reliable sources (but other than that - if for example the blog posts are under editorial control, this reference would meet the criteria for establishing notability!). The esquire article reviews one of their products but says nothing about the company and therefore fails the criteria for establishing notability. The fastcompany review fails because it relies on quotations and information from Patterson. The youtube reference fails because it is produced by the company and is an advertisement and I have no idea why it even appears in the article. Finally the instinct magazine article fails for many reasons but lets go with the fact that it doesn't provide any information on the company but is a commentary on one of their ads. -- HighKing ++ 12:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The esquire article [by the now-former senior fashion editor] reviews one of their products ... fails the criteria for establishing notability"? Say what? You also haven't addressed the Business Insider and Men's Health articles. Are they "informercials [sic]" as SmokeyJoe claims? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not infomercials? Was the spelling wrong?  Product placement in a magazine read by the elite target audience?  For any source, the publisher is one check, but so is the reading of the text. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Product placement? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All three of your chosen links, 1, 2 and 3 illustrate their articles with supplied promotion photographs of the promoted product. The reviews are thin, very thin, contrary to your description of "solid".  I don't read coverage or commentary, but text that reads as company description, promotion, and testimonial.  Related to this is my proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Notability.  This article is surely the product of clueful paid editing, the sources are advertorials, and the articles were WP:Reference bombed from the beginning.  The large multitude of references makes it hard for AfD reviewers to conclude that none pass the sourcing tests of the WP:GNG or WP:CORP.  So, a fair challenge for a proponent is:  Show two to three (no less, no more) references that demonstrate notability.  Your chosen three do not.  They do not provide secondary source material for the topic, and, despite traditional respect for the reputation of the involved publishers, my assessment is that there do not read as independent.  They read as non-independent.  No downsides.  No caveats.  No cross-competing-products comparisons.  This product is great!  Buy some now!  User:HighKing points out how some of the publications are merely associated with the traditionally reputable publishers, but are actually outside of the publisher's decision making.  Maybe the "solid reviews" were not included in your three examples?  Where are 2-3 solid reviews?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, you baselessly equate favorable reviews with promotion. "Advertorials"? Reviews are certainly not primary sources, unless you're claiming the writers work for Tommy John. Also, I don't recall Business Insider and Men's Health being taken over by the company. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , it appears you missed my response to your rebuttal which was originally posted above so I've copied it below. You're also missing the point that a source needs to be independent. That doesn't mean it needs to be owned or taken over by the company, it means it needs to be "intellectually independent". An easy way to spot if a reference is intellectually independent or not is to check to see if the article attributed facts and information to another source (for example, using phrases such as "According to the company" or "The founder XXX says ....") - that is not "intellectually independent" unless the author then provides some personal view or insight. -- HighKing ++ 10:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , "Say What" isn't a rebuttal based on policy/guidelines. Just to be clear, this article is a review of a T-Shirt made by the company. It hardly mentions the company. It provides zero facts about the company and name-checks the company a grand total of twice. This is not "significant coverage" of the topic and fails WP:GNG. I had missed the other references but since you've pointed them out, here's my analysis.
 * This businessinsider article relies almost entirely on company produced material including extensive quotations from the founder and even embeds the company's YouTube ad into the article. The article is not "intellectually independent" and fails the criteria for establishing notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
 * The 2nd businessinsider article makes the following statement at the very top: Business Insider has affiliate partnerships, so we get a share of the revenue from your purchase. You asked earlier if another editor was accusing BusinessInsider of shilling ... well ... what would you call this? Clearly the reference is not intellectually independent and I would reject any "reviews" from BusinessInsider on the basis of that statement since it calls into question their "intellectual independence". It is not possible to be independent and take a share of revenues. Fails WP:GNG.
 * This menshealth reference is a review of a number of different mens underwear. Just like equire article, it fails to provide any mentions of the company but does discuss one of their products. The Topic of this article is the company, not their products, therefore this cannot be considered "significant coverage" of the Topic (the company) and therefore fails WP:GNG. -- HighKing ++ 10:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If the WP:SPA sole author,, is not an undisclosed paid editor, undisclosed alternative account, then I'm a monkey's uncle. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly with a merge - the company is profiled as a success story in a book in print - Brian Cohen, ‎John Kador, What Every Angel Investor Wants You to Know: An Insider Reveals How to Get Smart Funding for Your Billion Dollar Idea (2013), p. 96-98. My instinct is that since the articles on the company and the founder are both relatively short articles, they could stand a merge. The target title doesn't really matter, since the one would then redirect to the other, although the narrative flow would obviously depend on whether it's an article about a company with a large section on its founder, or an article on an entrepreneur with a large section on his company. If at the end of the day there is an absence of consensus to keep such a combined effort, then move to draft space, under the usual condition that it must be sufficiently improved there, or eventually will automatically get deleted. bd2412  T 01:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, just so point out that the author of that book, Brian Cohen, was an investor in Tommy John. The reference is therefore not from an independent source. -- HighKing ++ 19:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose that if Warren Buffet were to write a book about his investments mentioning Berkshire Hathaway or Coca-Cola (of which he owns a substantial share), we might cite that as a source strictly for the notability of the subject, despite the lack of independence of the author. As long as the relationship is pointed out, the reader can decide how reliable the account is likely to be. It is a minor point. With or without that source I would lean towards keeping, but also lean towards merging the two related articles, and perhaps moving the merged whole into draft space for further improvement. bd2412  T 19:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be left to each editor to apply the policies and guidelines but in my opinion, something written by an investor is not independent. If the topic was Coca-Cola, that reference would fails the criteria for establishing notability (but note: that reference *can* be used to add the fact of his investment into the article). -- HighKing ++ 13:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * After a little more searching around, I see that the company is also profiled (at less length) in Bruce R. Barringer, R. Duane Ireland, Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New Ventures (5th Edition) (2015), p. 110. bd2412  T 20:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not have access to this book so I can't independently verify. Maybe someone else can? -- HighKing ++ 13:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You can see this in the "look inside" preview on Amazon.com. Search for "Tommy", and the requisite paragraph comes up - in summary, it says that the company "began in 2008 by making custom-fitted men's undershirts, and has now expanded to men's briefs and men's socks", and that the products were initially sold through a single retailer, then through Neiman Marcus nationwide. Of course, it's not a particularly extensive analysis, but it's more than most companies get in trade literature. bd2412  T 14:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , that Amazon book is good - it meets the criteria for establishing notability. Also, Endnotes on page 131 points to here but the audio is missing. If we can find one more reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, I'm happy to change my !vote. -- HighKing ++ 17:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And how would you say these thing rate against the language of WP:CORP. Which two or three sources establish our threshold of notability? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say that I lean towards agreeing with Bearian and Clarityfiend that there are already sources in the article that are sufficiently reliable (even if they are merely "good reviews"), and would reiterate my earlier point that even if Cohen is an investor, the Cohen/Kador book is still a book in print, and carries some weight towards the notability of the subject (basically, my thinking is that the book reflects that he thought this was a good company, therefore he chose to invest in it, not that he invested in it, therefore chose to think this was a good company). If that was all there was, I would be inclined to keep but move to draft space for further development. If the Barringer/Ireland book is added as a source, as it should be, then I would lean more towards keeping outright. Obviously it's not the most important subject, averaging 25 views per day, so the encyclopedia would not collapse if it was deleted, but it's not an outright hoax or a product only sold in one local store, so I see no harm to including it, either. bd2412  T 01:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, but I don't think "reliable" was ever at issue. The underpants undoubtedly exist, weight what they do, and get bought. The issue is "independent" and "third party" and "coverage". I haven't evaluated you suggested good book sources, but the current content is entirely supported by non-independent promotion. The danger is the continued breach of promotion, paid editing, and reference bombing to confuse our reviews. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That is exactly why my opinion is somewhat tentative. Those are editing issues that can be corrected by the addition of sources like the one I have found. It should be added to the article, although I have no personal inclination to work on this subject. If it is not, then the article should be moved to draft, so the other issues can be addressed before returning it to mainspace. bd2412  T 12:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think new good sources are an argument for WP:TNT instead of straight delete. The content is built from inappropriate sources, all of it, and none of it can be fixed by adding something else. If the good sources are about an innovative start up, fine, but the underpants promotion has to go. Keeping the paid editor attribution for entirely promotional material subsequently removed is a dishonest substitute for TNT. They are not an author of the fixed (substituted) material. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the line of thought here is that 1) the news sources speak positively about the product, therefore the news sources must be compromised, and 2) the editors writing about the product incorporate the positive news sources, therefore those editors must be compromised. I disagree with the premise that the all of the current sources are inappropriate; sometimes independent reporters have positive things to say about a product they like. I think that points have been made by others in this discussion about some of those sources. I myself have written articles about, for example, nineteenth century judges, for which all of the available sources were positive reviews talking about how kind and gentle and well-spoken the subject was, and how well-regarded his opinion were. I wasn't paid to write those articles, but they reflect the sources, and therefore present a positive picture of the subject. The product here appears to be well-liked. The only significant criticism seems to be the cost, which is mentioned as the first response in the CBS News source, but has not made it in the article. I would add that information. However, I have seen articles for products like fad diets and herbal supplements where the products are useless or even harmful, and available negative information is whitewashed. This is not that. bd2412  T 16:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's now many weeks since I came to this article doing New Page Patrol, when I opened and read every source, and was able to infer that *every* superficially notability-attesting source was a planted advertorial. It was not simply that "reviews are too positive", but that on looking for secondary source material, statements that comment on the basic facts, distilling those, they were bald faced advocacy. Who says these underpants are great?  Compared to which competing products?  Silence. All advertorial. This product on a mountain peak in isolation. I certainly do not reject reviews for being positive, but there is a difference between a testamonial and a review.  The "news" sources are not "news", I judged, but not due to their positivity. True, there is no negative or harmfully misleading components at play here. This is a clean case of clever promotion, SPA DUCK paid editing, and Reference bombing with advertorials. Supposedly our test is simple: is WP:CORP met?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't disqualify sources like CBS News that basis. The fact that CBS News does a story on the subject also itself increases the population of interest for the subject, making it more likely that people will turn to an encyclopedia to learn more about it. We cover widely reported topics not just because the reporting provides material from which to sort article content, but also because we ultimately serve a public that is turning to us to find this information. bd2412  T 02:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * People come to Wikipedia for product information, yes they sure do and so do I. The expectation is for object description. Why are these underpants better? What technology or quality advantage do they have. To what popular and critical reception?  What do independent commentators say, comparing these garments with standard garments?  This is what I expect, and it is not the current content or the current sources. Mere coverage has never been good enough for WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC) The CBS news article is a great source, but is not independent and so does not contribute to the notability test. Do we require independent sourcing for commercial products or not?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not keen on going around this point endlessly, but I can find no evidence that the independence of CBS News was compromised with respect to this story. Can you demonstrate, for example, that CBS was paid to place this story? After all, if the mere favorability of a review was taken as proof that the review itself was not independent, then we would only have articles on poorly reviewed things. bd2412  T 12:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point (maybe?). CBS is a reliable third party source, I think everyone would agree on that. The specific part of the article used as a reference relies almost exclusively on quotations from Patterson (the founder) and Hart (an investor) for data and information. There is no substantial editorial comment (neutral third party comment) on any of the quotations or facts or information - therefore the article is not "intellectually independent" and fails WP:CORPDEPTH (quotations used as story) and WP:ORGIND materials originating from company sources. If, for example, you removed all the facts and information attributable to connected and non-independent sources, what are you left with? -- HighKing ++ 15:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who they are quoting, as long as CBS retains editorial control over the content of their publications. There are situations where entities like Forbes do surrender that control. This isn't that. bd2412  T 15:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, no easy way to say this but you're dead wrong. All editorial control can do is ensure that quotations are accurately reproduced. Job done. It doesn't stand over the content (facts, opinions, language, etc) of the quotation though and therefore we can't either. -- HighKing ++ 10:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll need to see a source for your proposition that a news outlet has no choice but to reproduce everything and anything that an interview subject says, without editorial control. bd2412  T 12:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Strawman argument. I never said that a news outlet had no choice but to reproduce everything and anything. A quick test - read the article, remove/ignore anything attributed to company sources and if there's no substantial information left, it fails the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing ++ 14:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that he is wrong. Unusually, but it happens. No amount of mere repetition, or provision of platform for presentation, transforms the source material. In this case, all material, not counting the sniggers, is first-person primary source material. He believes that the CBS editor's decision to play the material is sufficient to establish notability. It is not a terribly uncommon position. It would mean that everything passed through CNS is suitable for standalone articles, which I consider absurd. However, we are not about to change his mind. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please remember, my original !vote indicated preference for a merge and move to draft on the basis of the sources included in the article as is. Of my own accord, I searched for additional sources, and found some that it does not seem anyone else had done a deep enough search to find (one of which is not independent, but is still from a book-in-print, the other of which is pretty clearly independent). My final impression is that the existing sources taken collectively, plus the newly found sources add up to meeting the threshold of notability. I am not claiming the CBS News source is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it is one of several sources in the article that I would not dismiss entirely. bd2412  T 21:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So, you afford strong weight to editorial independence? I don't. It can't be proven one way or the other. I think the decision should rest on analysis of the material in the source. In the source, who with independence said what about the topic. CBS made no commentary beyond sniggers. They merely provided their platform. A show filler. Slightly unusual. An advertorial. What also kills it is the complete lack of mention of similar products, and I also note the lack of incoming links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We are each entitled to assign weight to the source in accordance with our interpretation of its value. I differentiate a piece that is merely "lightweight" from one that is purchased advertising. bd2412  T 01:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. I understand what you have said and believe you have understood me. Thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- a run-of-the-mill apparel company, with an article filled with puffery about a "candid approach" etc. At the moment of this vote, the article content is 100% promo, which is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. Otherwise, significant RS coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH not found. The sources are largely WP:SPIP and there's nothing better out there, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC) – http://fortune.com/2012/01/27/mens-underwear-leaves-the-stone-age/ • Tommy John Underwear: Tames Sweat, Stays Tucked, Changes Lives – http://www.thestreet.com/story/12041511/1/my-new-underpants-just-changed-my-life.html I still think all the currently used sources are advertorials, and the article needs a rewrite. The founder says he was "lucky" to get coverage. I don't think it was lucky coverage, but skilfully managed promotional featuring. These two references are different in that they include comparison, enough for a non-failing grade for a scholarly review. The fact that the reviews are 100% glowing positive is not a critical failing, it may be a worry, but it may be that the underwear actually is as good as claimed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe this case study also meets the criteria for establishing notability. It is a case study on Tommy John presented by a professor-emeritus of the University of Massachusetts and impeccable academic qualifications. The case study is presented as a list of facts and data but not attributed to a PRIMARY source. Based on this reference and the previous book reference found by, my !vote is Keep.  -- HighKing ++ 13:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Typo, there? bd2412  T 15:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Aaarghh! Fixed. -- HighKing ++ 17:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that a case study teaching material establishes notability. Especially not with the first two references being to overtly promotional sites. However, the third and moreso the fourth references are coverage that include comparison to other companies. 3&4 are: • Men's underwear leaves the Stone Age


 * 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.