Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fashion Central

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. ^Complex/_Rational 15:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Central

[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)

This is clearly PROMO, created by a now blocked sock puppet. It hasn't received sig/ in-depth coverage in RS, aside from some churnalism or paid coverage. Furthermore, it is not even a magazine as the article claims, but rather a boutique or maybe some e-commerce store. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. It is not a magazine, but a shopping mall type of thing. 2A04:4A43:8AAF:F70C:B589:6E17:29C1:C9A7 (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I originally closed this discussion as a Soft Deletion, not knowing until I saw the deleted page that an earlier version on this article had been deleted as a PROD. So, it is not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Liz, Despite my reduced activity in nominating pages for deletion since your msg on my tp, there continues to be a lack of participation in Pakistan-related AfD which is realy concerning. Can we draftify the articles at minimum if they're not eligible for soft deletion? — Saqib (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a decline in AFD participation for over a year now. I don't see any editor advocating Draftification so I'd rather see if this relisting encourages mor participation over the coming week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I see.. So it means some reforms are the need of the time. — Saqib (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, thanks for the link to this discussion, I didn't know about it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, So you didn't get that ping. Right? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~. Nominator is correct; the subject is a retail outlet. In general I agree that the article is promotional in tone and needs significant cleanup to become encyclopedic. However, I find WP:SIGCOV in the Express Tribune, plus the Dawn and The News sources already in the article that would clear WP:NCORP. It's a weak keep because it's unclear to me how to validate whether these examples are churnalism, and I don't know enough about Pakistani news outlets to know if they are afflicted with the issues posed by WP:NEWSORGINDIA. (RS Noticeboard discussions are mixed but appear to lean on the side of considering them RS.) I could probably be convinced otherwise but this is my take after reviewing the sources and searching for more. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dclemens1971, The coverage in The News is based on an interview that only briefly mentions the subject, so I shall label it as a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. WP:NORG states Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Meanwhile, articles in The Express Tribune and DAWN , published on the same day - 29 September 2023 - to mark the subject's launch and the PROMO tone in both coverages suggests they're based on PR stuff and for PR purpose. WP:SIRS states that coverage based on based on a company's marketing materials shouldn't be acceptable for WP:N. While they're suitable for WP:V purpose, but using them to establish GNG seems inadequate given the rigorous sourcing requirements for establishing WP:N. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Saqib. I agree with your source analysis and changed my !vote to delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The magazine has just enough coverage to warrant an article. The nominator hasn't shown that the sources are actually paid for, and the claim that the article's original creators has been banned is false. Cortador (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Cortador, But I don't see enough coverage. Please see my assessment above timestamped 20:58, 17 June 2024. WP:RSNOI clearly states even legitimate Indian (as well Pakistani) news organizations (print, television, and web) intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press release–based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian (as well Pakistani) news media so requires extra vigilance! Page logs clearly indicate this article was deleted and re-created multiple times for blatant advertising by SPAs including by now blocked Special:Contributions/Zara-ahmad and Special:Contributions/Nokhaiz Kaunpal. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Saqib's rationale above, none of the references are anything other than regurgitated company PR. Also "Mentions" and "Coverage" are not part of our notability criteria, it is the content that we look at. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing is atrocious. Some sources can't be verified, others like PRLog are clearly not independent. Especially with Saqib's explanation above, the Tribune and the News sources from the struck !vote above read as extremely promotional and I do not believe we can count them towards NCORP. Paid or not, stuff like Through this new portal, relevant information will be available to users at the click of a mouse, ensuring that pertinent information is readily available. is clearly not something we should rely on to decide that a for-profit company with a history of promotional editing is notable. Toadspike [Talk] 14:49, 24 June 2024 (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.