Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoobi


 * 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. I don't think I've seen an instance of an article creator and almost sole contributor bringing one of their articles to AFD before but I guess you believe existing problems can not be fixed through editing. This makes the situation more complex than if you had requested speedy deletion, CSD G7 but not impossible if you would like to work on this article in User or Draft space. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Yoobi

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is a self-nomination; it has been brought to my attention that the coverage of this topic may not be enough to satisfy the notability criteria set by WP:ORG. Of the 15 sources used, 4 are non-independent, while another 4 are of generally dubious reliability. The coverage by the remaining 7 is somewhat limited. An anonymous username, not my real name 21:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. I wrote a note at Talk:Yoobi, my opinion probably will be controversial but I think WP:NCORP is weakly failed. Many of the references are non-independent, non-reliable (1, see short RSN discussion; 2, with no editorial policies, 3, a contributor piece, 4, non-RS per WP:RSP). Other independent, reliable sources are mainly product coverage (e.g., The NY Times is a product review, but doesn't describe the company broadly), routine announcements on partnerships... but there are a few worth discussing. This reference from People primarily surrounds its product instead of about its company. WP:NCORP states that Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources. Then, it covers the company entirely in quotes without providing any detailed commentary that would meet Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth, IMO it falls under ndard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage. and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The reference from CNBC is better and significantly longer. However, it doesn't exclusively discuss the company, but instead more general details on Leffle and Cortez, and uses quotes, sales details, and brief coverage of its mission along with some more detailed coverage of philanthropic rfforts and other company events at the end, which lean on the trivial side, so it debatably meets WP:CORPDEPTH. The Billboard reference is certainly WP:RS, but as it is an announcement on the launch of a limited-edition back-to-school collection with content mainly quotes, it probably doesn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. There are many references per my WP:BEFORE, though they don't appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, e.g., 1, 2 (contributor piece), 3 (The Australian Daily Telegraph is a questionably reliable tabloid), 4 (announcement on store opening). Therefore, I am at weak delete, nevertheless, the article is well-written and if a merge/redirect target could be found that would be preferable as a WP:ATD in contrast to deletion. Thanks, and  (who were discussing or pinged on talk), please let me know if there are valid alternatives to deletion, if so please ping me.  VickKiang   (talk)  21:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I concur with the analysis above, none of the sources meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 19:36, 2 December 2022 (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.