Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mecca (Cosmetics)

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. With no prejudice against recreation of an article w/o advertising and with claims of significance, seeing as SWAloha's claim has not been refuted. Much of the deletion argument pertains to the current version of the page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mecca (Cosmetics)

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

No external references or evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:COMPANY and WP:NOTADVERTISEMENT...Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notableSassmouth (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as clear A7 material. SwisterTwister talk 01:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Clearly has enough available reliable sources which have simply not been used yet. The article is a stub but that shouldn't be the basis of people's opinions on the article's notability IMO. Go research Jo Horgan, the owner of the company. SWAloha ⚜ 08:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not citing how the article is not violating policy WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 18:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep, but needs work: In my jaded understanding of RS. this , this and maybe this , seem to hit what we're looking for. However Ramesh's point above about WP:NOTADVERTISEMENT compels me to agree somewhat there. If we keep it, we need eyes to bring it together better. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 13:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While they're known news publications, the comment themselves are simply PR interviews and quotes, take "The company founder's vision for the company is", "The company said today", "The company's business plans are", "The company wants this and that", "The company is saying", etc. None of that is independent because it was all from the company itself and therefore is unacceptable. Becsuse of this, the article's removal is accepted by policy WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 18:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Okay, struck above, thanks Swister! MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 22:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Forward looking statements in passing do not constitute notability. -- Dane ^talk 20:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: See above bit between myself and SwisterTwister. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 22:47, 8 December 2016 (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.