Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Fresh (2nd nomination)

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Fresh

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Deleted as promo in 2020, recreated by a 57-edits account in 2022. Fails WP:NCORP.

[1] Fails WP:ORGIND, this source's entire content is the CEO talking about her own company.
[2] Fails ORGIND, most of the article is a regurgitation of a press release by a company that partnered with Teddy Fresh
[3] Clearly a promotional ad, complete with price tags for the products and an unreasonably large collection of pictures of them
[4] WP:ORGTRIV, routine announcement of products, the original commentary on the company is a negligibly small part of the article
[5] Routine announcement, looks like a press release
[6] This is just an advertisement, complete with price tags and the pictures of the products.
[7] Barely passes WP:ORGDEPTH, since a great part of this article is about the CEO talking about her own company
[8] Another trivial announcement of products. The parts of this article that aren't the CEO talking about her own company are simple descriptions of the company's latest released products. There's not enough original, in-depth commentary on the company. Badbluebus (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Fashion. Badbluebus (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Internet. Heart ^(talk) 06:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: the Uproxx sources are fine, we have some non-primary coverage of the brand/company. Not very much, but I think it's enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Uproxx source states that "Disclaimer: Uproxx may receive payment to direct readers to certain retail vendors who are offering these products for purchase." Looks unreliable to me. Badbluebus (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do about the reliability of their content. It's about the ads and any related affiliate links, they are usually legally required to state this transparency. – The Grid (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, the Uproxx references would not be reliable for notability as they are written by contributors so I would say they are similar to WP:FORBESCON. However, this reference in WWD doesn't just "barely pass." Yes, it has a lot of quotes but it goes in-depth about the company with information written by the staff writer. I also think this one in the Business Insider was missed in the WP:BEFORE. Not only does it meet WP:CORPDEPTH, look at the bio of the writer (complete opposite of the Uproxx writer). --CNMall41 (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There isn't much, but there is some coverage. WP:SIGCOV says there's no set number, but we're right on the edge here. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the sources provided by Badbluebus and the explanation of CNMall4. Gedaali (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It makes no sense to argue for Keep based on User:Badbluebus's review of sources as they were very critical of the sources present. I don't see editors arguing Keep rebut most of their evaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The WWD and Insider sources are enough to provide WP:SIGCOV (barely, but if we're being fair, the sources are there). They also meet WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is sufficient coverage such as WWD and License Global Drushrush (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2025 (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.