Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clique Brands

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clique Brands

[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)

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are PR driven and press-releases. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 08:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there is a decent write up here [1] and this is an interview but has a decent-ish lead [2]. With the rest given, I think it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first source noted above in support of a weak keep is from the Los Angeles Business Journal and is an announcement of a capital transaction, such as raised capital: Powered Brands Gets Off to Strong Start With $276 Million IPO, and is largely based on "documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission", information "according to the company", "according to SEC filings", what "the company describes", "according to the company", "according to SEC filings", so does not provide sufficient WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGIND to support notability, because it is essentially a press release. The second source cited is written by a WP:FORBESCON and is not a reliable source. In the article, the 2017 Fast Company source announces a name, brand and personnel change, based on a promotional interview, e.g. "says Katherine Power", "says Power", "Power says", "she says", so is also insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The 2015 Business Insider source is also mostly based on a promotional interview related to raised capital, e.g. "Power told Business Insider", "Power said", "Power said". Similary, the 2015 Techcrunch source is mostly quotes from Power related to the announcement of an acquisition, so it lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The 2016 WWD source similarly announces a product based on statements by Power. The 2016 Instyle source is thinly-veiled advertisement for a book co-authored by Power and Kerr, which begins by noting a personal friendship (i.e. lack of independence) with Kerr. The 2016 Forbes article reports an acquisition and is based on "Power said", "Power noted", "Power expects" and promotes a Forbes podcast with Power speaking, so also lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The remaining sources are similar or worse, including a blog, more interviews, and announcements of routine business transactions. A search for more sources finds more of the same. There appears to be insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND to support an article, and little to no support that is not WP:PROMO. Beccaynr (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Beccaynr's source analysis and reasoning. The article for one of it's brands Who What Wear should probably also be nominated for deletion as it has similar sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Beccaynr's thorough analysis. S0091 (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've sent Who What Wear to Afd. Seems to be a considerable consensus that it should go up Afd. I never included it in this, as thought they would be better consensus as independent Afd, but its now nominated. scope_creep^Talk 15:14, 29 November 2022 (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.