Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luxe (company)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 02:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luxe (company)

[edit]
Luxe (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:COMPANY. Sources in the article are unreliable or otherwise not independent. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we keep articles about notable companies, even if the media is reporting them in trouble, and even if they are defunct. Passes GNG easily, just a start:[1][2]. More easily found. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Forbes and WSJ are reliable and independent sources. - TheMagnificentist 18:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as looking into this, I see the Forbes is actually by a freelance journalist hence a quite common sight when a company wants to thinly veiled its involvements with the advertising-only; we all know that and it's something we've established quite clearly here at AfD, the other sources (regardless of publication or name) are still clear attempts at republishing the company's own words and it's still obvious because of the sheer consistency that only the company would care to show and it shows it because it's explicitly for advertising, hence at clients and investors, not an encyclopedia. WashingtonPost itself is a naturally looking business listing about it, including clear interviews and PR attempts. Guidelines still mean bithing, regardless of what one chooses, because WP:NOT was the first policy we started ever using. It's quite obvious that someone involved with the company started this so that's another damning contributing factor. When we no longer start considering our explicit policies of We're Not A Business Listing, we start damning ourselves simply because we cannot even choose to delete the simplest of things. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not sure why it is being said that there are no independent sources here. Washington Post and Bloomberg are independent and have good reputation as sources. I agree however, that Forbes freelance articles can be questionable and are sometimes simply press releases. 45.72.152.96 (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. See source examples below; additional sources are also available. Also, in my opinion, articles about notable companies are not all automatically business listings as some sort of peculiar default. North America1000 05:11, 19 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luxe_(company)&oldid=1143890625"