Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burch Creative Capital

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. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burch Creative Capital

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of an interconnected series of promotional articles on this firm and its brands, all created by the apparently single-purpose promotional editors User:Talunz, User:Maz204, & User:Julieb-pma Most have been previously deleted as A7, G11, or both. The references appear to be entirely PR-based, and therefore not usable as reliable sources for notability. Rather than speedy again, I'm bringing them here so re-additions of the material can be unequivocally speedy deleted as reconstructions of deleted content.

I'm listing them separately, because it is possible that one or more of the brands might be notable and someone might be prepared to do the necessary extensive rewriting. I've sometimes done this in the past, but I will no longer do my volunteer unpaid work to replace the unacceptable work of people who have been paid to do it. (For those brands where it required only some deletions , and where the articles had references clearly showing notability, I did make the edits & have not nominated them here. I'm still willing to do that, because fixing the promotionalism is the only way we have to deal with such low-quality but still acceptable articles.) DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. New company, pushing their one-year old brands with "lipstick on a pig" reference padding to make it look notable:

Self-published profile of the owner
Company's website
CBS news, a reasonable source, but the article is actually about a female "PR Maven" who teamed up with the owner for a fashion brand that was part of a company he was formerly chairman of and has nothing to do with this company
Interview with the owner, not about the company
Press release snippet about the owner stepping down as chairman of a previous company
Press release based puff-piece on one of its new brands (C. Wonder) in Haute Living
Los Angeles Times, a reasonable source, but the article is actually about one of the new designers the company is investing in (Monika Chiang) and who is claimed to be "dating" the company's chairman
Press release based puff-piece on another one of their new brands (Poppin, Inc.) in Company Inc.

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The company's raison d'être is simply to manage the brands he's recently created and owns. This entire "suite" of articles is a shameless and unencyclopedic use of Wikipedia for PR. At most, some of the information here can be added to J. Christopher Burch Voceditenore (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and Voceditenor. Spinning Spark 01:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just lacks notability. Mt king ^(edits) 01:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.