Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WardrobeTrendsFashion


 * 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. There is consensus that there is insufficent reliable sourcing available to meet notability guidelines. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

WardrobeTrendsFashion

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable online portal sourced almost entirely to press releases. I can't find significant coverage in Singaporean media, such as The Straits Times or Today Online. The award does not seem significant. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks like this was speedy deleted twice before under Wardrobe Trends Fashion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

- Dear NinjaRobotPirate,

Thanks for being vigilance in spotting that there wasn't enough media coverage references cited previously in the first cut.

I've updated the page itself with more coverage.

However, here is the list of notable coverage within local media:
 * The statistics released by Twitter that WardrobeTrendsFashion is Number One in Singapore for Twitter followers was also featured on The Straits Times online on 10 Dec 2014, and on Straits Times print on 11 Dec 2014, page A10.
 * In December 2014, The New Paper followed up with a full-page interview with WardrobeTrendsFashion's founder, Herbert Sim, which was republished on AsiaOne.
 * In August 2014, Mypaper ran a full-page featured story with WardrobeTrendsFashion's founder, Herbert Sim.
 * In July 2012, WardrobeTrendsFashion's editor-in-chief, Vanessa Emily, had a 1-page feature on Cosmopolitan (magazine) Singapore — July 2012 issue.
 * In April 2012, WardrobeTrendsFashion was featured on 8 Days (Magazine) — Issue 1123.

The reason for being 'speedy deleted twice' a few years ago was prior to all these new media coverage, and new collaborations and syndication partnerships that were newly forged.

Hope this clarifies. Appreciate if you can advise if this meets the notability requirements, and the next steps to proceed. Thanks!

Best regards, (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC+08:00)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  14:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  14:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  14:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  14:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. See WP:BOMBARD.  These are basically press releases, trivial mentions, and interviews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I took a look at all references in the article and also performed my own search. Unfortunately, there is nothing in-depth that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and the rest are not considered WP:RS - the company website and press releases. With that being said, this fails WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Almost everything in the first few pages of Google search results is self-generated PR or social networking content. One of the few independent articles is, and that's about the company using fake stock photos for their fake writers. Plus, there's a COI issue, an SPA issue, and the main editor involved is associated closely enough with the CEO to have uploaded a picture of the CEO (File:Photo of Herbert Sim.jpg) as "own work". The article has also been deleted twice already under the name Wardrobe Trends Fashion. John Nagle (talk) 05:19, 27 January 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.