Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True & Co.


 * 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) – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

True & Co.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's enough here to suggest the authoring user was a paid advertiser and the fact this only focuses with what the company wants to advertise to clients and investors, that's unsurprising; my own searches found nothing but a trivial mention from over 3 years ago. None of this establishes actual substance because it's all published or republished or simply triviality, and it's non-negotiable when considering WP:NOT. There's no compromises with such blatancy damning as "The company uses a questionnaire and associated algorithm to recommend bra sizes to customers" and "True & Co.’s innovation is to put a batch of bras into customers’ hands so they can choose what fits best". SwisterTwister  talk  18:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America1000 19:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The New York Times
 * Fortune
 * Cnet
 * Fast Company
 * Entrepreneur
 * Glamour
 * Bloomberg News
 * New York Post
 * Fortune
 * Comment and analysis - Not only are these the same sources in the current article or also found in GoogleNews I showed above, the other ones are clear interviews such as Fortune, NYPost, Bloomberg and Glamour; Glamour itself is a clear gossip column, advertising the services to its viewers, but then the NYPost (which is notoriously known for such gossip entertainment columns, then is a clear "life story" of the business owner herself. When there's a sheer consistency in the same interviewed business information especially about flashy specifics about the business and owner, as these articles show, it shows only one person authored it and it's the company itself. Especially, because we've established as it is, when there's such a noticeable space of time between time, such as a year or two in between, it shows it was obvious attempts at needing PR, not that there was ingenuity. Even if there were doubled the amount of this, it would still not mean anything if it's still naturally PR, exactly why we use WP:NOT as it explicitly states "Wikipedia is a PR collection for company information, specifics and other business information as if in a YellowPages". SwisterTwister   talk  19:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles that contain some interview content, but also significant non-interview prose, are not interview-only as some sort of default. It is common for news media to discuss matters with subjects they cover; it would be quite biased for them not to. North America1000 19:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per notability shown by NA1000's analysis above. ST's analysis is illogical and biased.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:38, 23 December 2016 (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.