Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HEWI London

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HEWI London

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

This entire article is a PR advert and this (the article creator) seems to suggest he's working for them, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the link-content disappears then here's an archived version - https://web.archive.org/web/20171116232711/https://medium.com/@nialllazenby/dolce-gabbana-mens-deep-purple-velvet-blazer-on-hewi-london-82cd1413d462, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article should be rewritten to remove the puffery but I do think the subject is notable and meets WP:GNG. The references given include to articles in The Telegraph, Harpers Bazaar, Daily Mail and El Pais. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I'm all for keeping and rewriting but IMHO this should be Deleted and rewritten (Well over 95% of the article is PR and if we remove this we're only left with a small sentence if that - If someone believes they're notable then it can be rewritten by a neutral editor), Also just to note that the Daily Mail is no longer a reliable source, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Refs are sufficient for notability. Should have been tagged with its issues rather than sent here. Szzuk (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging achieves nothing, As I said above this entire article is better off deleted and rewritten by a neutral editor - Other than the lede there is literally nothing in this article that can be kept due to it all being promotional. –Davey2010^Talk 21:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC){Updated 02:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete as per WP:TNT. While the company may be notable, this article is so blatantly promotional, that the best thing is to delete it and start over. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only is the article completely promotional, *none* of the references are intellectually independent and they fail WP:NCORP. Both Cwmhiraeth and Szzuk state that the references are sufficient for notability. This is not true - at least for the ones included in the article and mentioned here. Perhaps could either of them please post which references meet the criteria for establishing notability here? While the references are published by third party reliable sources, the references/article themselves are not intellectually independent or contain no in-depth information - qualities which are required in order for references to meet the criteria for establishing notability. Cwmhiraeth mentions references from The Telegraph, Harpers Bazaar, Daily Mail and El Pais. But The Telegraph article relies on quotations and interview with the founder with no independent analysis or opinon and no independent in-depth reporting on the company, therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The Harpers Bazaar reference is a listing of "The Best Designer Resale Sites" with a small description of each site - specifically fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it fails "inclusion in lists of similar organizations". There's two Daily Mail references. The first is "My lightbulb moment" from the founder -> fails for the same reasons as the Telegraph article. The second reference is not intellectually independent as the author relies on information provided by the company as demonstrated with comments such as (and its a bit of a giveaway) "and Gucci, whose owner is super famous, but sadly I’m not allowed to reveal her identity." Both Daily Mail references fail WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ,,,, One thin crop of an article and there's no good stuff on it, delete as spam. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are insufficient sources to pass WP:CORP both in the article and from search. Tagging usually doesn't sole these kind of problem because of WP:AMOUNT. Better leave it in near future when they get more coverage, someone who have access to more sources to write it in better shape –Ammarpad (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH & WP:NCORP; an advertorial piece on an unremarkable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2017 (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.