- 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 deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 09:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Jahan Geneve
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Jahan Geneve ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have created this article somedays back. It was suddenly speedy deleted for promotional today and I recreated the article while trying to rectify the issue mentioned as the reason for deletion. But still some editor think it should be deleted. I am nominating my own article for deletion to let others decide if it should be there as an article or not. Chiro725 ( talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Native advertising. No effective references. scope_creep Talk 20:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Can you please say how it fails WP:CORPDEPTH, when it says "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. " and also says "Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. ". In fact the references indicates the brand satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH as for example this, this, this, this etc. Don't you think the same?-- Chiro725 ( talk) 21:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NCORP no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Theroadislong ( talk) 21:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Can you please elaborate how you say "no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" when we have this, this, this, this and many others?-- Chiro725 ( talk) 21:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- A photograph, a Forbes puff piece article and a YouTube video do not make reliable sources. Theroadislong ( talk) 22:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly. Two Forbes Frances articles. Forbes is deprecated, its non-RS. The other eight refs are junk. A shop, an announcement, a profile page and so on, all fail Corpdepth or Orgind. scope_creep Talk 00:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete This vote may be redundant given the speedy (I don't know which takes precedent), but here goes FWIW. I don't see anything suggesting notability. If the company were a bona fide luxury brand with such a long history etc. as claimed, it would surely have been covered more extensively and/or by more 'serious' media (ATM the closest we get to that is probably Luxe.net, which may or may not be RS); the fact that it hasn't, suggests that it isn't. As it stands, fails WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Hi Folks!! The article has been deleted by CSD'd per G11 by user:Jimfbleak, so this Afd is moot. Somebody needs to close it. scope_creep Talk 11:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- To my untrained eye, having a CDS and AfD running parallel seems odd, but what do I know... Mind you, on this occasion a bot may have been partly to blame. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 12:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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.