Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loom and Leaf

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 redirect to Saatva. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loom and Leaf

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

PROD deleted by article creator, a single-purpose account with probable COI. The subject of the article is a new e-commerce startup with little to no coverage in secondary sources. Most notable I could find is this blog piece on the Huffington Post website. Other online articles that look official at first glance seem to be paid PR pieces. Hence does not meet the criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Citobun (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Notable" and "remarkable" are simply not synonymous, and there are many "unremarkable" subjects which receive sufficient coverage to satisfy the GNG. The secondary premise advanced by the nominator is simply wrong in this I am not a single purpose account. I have also made contribution throughout Wiki. I am just starting out in the Mattress space. Furthermore, multiple sources found on Loom and Leaf: Crain's New York Business in this Article, Fox News NY in this News, and DigiDay News coverage with other brands in this Article. EddieChar (talk) 20:53 ,13 November 2015 (UTC)

— Note to closing admin: EddieChar (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

EddieChar This can be drafted and userfied to your userspace but I'm simply not sure if there's enough third-party coverage to hold an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 21:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm looking at the sources on the article. Some of them don't actually mention Loom & Leaf at all. They mention their parent company, but right now this article needs to establish that L&L is notable outside of Saatva. Here's a rundown:

Le sources

Huffington Post. This is sort of a rundown of mattresses. L&L is given a paragraph, however this is one of the HuffPo's bloggers. The HuffPo is always debatable with their non-blog articles, but the general consensus I've seen is that the HuffPo's blogs aren't usable.
Inc.com. This is a list of top retail companies. However the one named in this isn't L&L, but the parent company of Saatva. This could possibly be used to establish notability for the parent company, maybe, but not L&L. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the parent company being possibly notable.
Observer. This doesn't mention L&L at all. It mentions Saatva, but it's in passing and would be considered a WP:TRIVIAL source. There's also a mild issue in how it's used in the article, since it's used to back up the sentence "The company is known for its personal approach." This is more from a promotional-ese angle since the way this is written is a little loose and doesn't clearly define exactly what is meant by "personal approach". In any case, the bigger issue is that this source couldn't show notability for the main company because of its brevity, let alone L&L.
Mashable. This doesn't mention either company or even mattresses at all. It can't be used to show notability nor could it even be used to back up the claims that the company provided mattresses for a promotional stunt for the Bates Motel. Given that the next source actually does mention mattresses and the company by name, this is pretty much a non-needed link.
Linkedin. Now this one does back up the claims. However the issues here are that this is an insanely brief mention and that this is on Linkedin, which is traditionally not seen as a RS. Even if we were to see this as a RS, it'd probably be a WP:TRIVIAL source because the mention is pretty much 1-2 sentences.
Washington Post. This is another fairly brief mention overall. The problem with these brief mentions is that the mattress isn't really the focus of the article, mostly just an offhand mention. Also, just as L&L doesn't inherit notability from its parent company, the brand does not inherit notability by the fact that the beds have been used by notable people or in relation to other notable things, like TV shows.
Huffington Post. This is another one of the HuffPo's blog entries. This is more lengthy and actually discusses the company in depth, but the problem here is that it's from one of the HuffPo's blogs. Also, if you look at the background of the guy who wrote the blog, he seems to be sort of a marketing person. This raises the question of whether or not this is a truly independent source or something that was purchased. The HuffPo isn't really the strongest of sources on their best days, so this isn't the type of thing I'd really rely on to show notability - and unfortunately this is the strongest source so far.
Vogue. This is sort of a brief mention as well, to be honest. It's mildly inbetween since it mentions both companies.

Just based on the sources on the article, I'd argue that the company isn't all that notable. I'm going to perform a search of course, but offhand I'm thinking that this probably won't pass notability guidelines for its own article. Now an alternative here might be to create an article for the parent company Saatva, since they look like they're more likely to pass notability guidelines and as the main/parent company, they could incorporate information about L&L fairly easily. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Saatva. I can't really find anything out there about this newly launched mattress brand to show that it merits an article outside of its parent company. Pretty much all I found were brief mentions like the ones in the article, although I did find this review from GeekDad. The article for the parent company needs some cleaning because it has some fairly promotional overtones, but I think that the parent company would likely pass notability guidelines. On a side note, EddieChar, you are required to disclose your conflict of interest with the article since it seems likely that you're part of a marketing company that was hired to write about Saatva/L&L. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the parent article and the brand is already mentioned several times in Saatva's article, so there's really not a huge need to merge anything else in. Anything that could be mentioned in the parent article already is mentioned. The thing about brands is that most typically do not warrant their own article or even really a huge in-depth description. This is because in most cases the brand doesn't gain much independent coverage from its parent organization. The only exception is when something is extremely visible in the public eye, like different Pepsi's various different brands of soda, like Diet Pepsi or Mountain Dew. This usually translates into the brand being a household name of some sort, which is fairly rare. Offhand the mentions here and there about the L&L brand is a good start, but this isn't at the stage yet where it'd warrant an independent article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Saatva. Agree with Tokyogirl79's assessment, and that there's not enough to warrant a merge. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 25 November 2015 (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.