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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assembled Brands[edit]

Assembled Brands (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)

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I would be fine with a redirect to Adam_Pritzker#Career which already sufficiently covers the subject. The company is only notable in relation with Pritzker, who is using his name to promote the company. It's not independently notable and the page is being used for promotion. Wikipedia does not need two pages on these closely related subjects. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed compromise (redirecting this to article Pritzker's career section) would be fine. K.e.coffman's reasoning is quite incisive. -The Gnome (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the nominator clicked on the citations if they say significant RS coverage not found. Two full-length features stories in the New York Times. This and this.; a long feature in The New York Observer [1]; a feature in Fortune Magazine; [2]; a long feature in leading business newspaper Business Insider [3]; a long feature in the leading fashion industry publication Women's Wear Daily [4]; another feature in Digiday; long story in a leading fashion publisher Fashionista.BC1278 (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

• I don't believe that these sources meet the new and improved WP:NCORP. For example, the NYT piece details that company's hopes and aspirations, with the title suggesting that the company has not achieved anything significant just yet: "Can America Build Its Own LVMH?" Business Insider is likewise advertorial in nature: "Go inside the gorgeous New York apartment where everything is for sale". Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• LVMH is the world's largest luxury goods conglomerate, with about $55 billion a year in revenue. The first (of two) NYT feature stories, here, explores whether Assembled Brands, given its track record of establishing brands, its pedigree, funding and model, might eventually rival it. It's a fiction to say the article suggests the company has not achieved anything significant yet.BC1278 (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

• Get off the stage. You can't consider an article that uses language like The experiment is being conducted by Adam Pritzker, a positive-thinking spritelike 31-year-old scion of the billionaire Hyatt hotel family, and Vanessa Traina, the famously chic 31-year-old daughter of the romance novelist Danielle Steel and stylist/consultant/BFF of designers like Joseph Altuzarra and Alexander Wang anywhere close to being "intellectually independent". Secondly, nowhere in the article does is ever say or suggest that they could *rival* LVMH. The article suggests he "dreams" of something completely differently. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NCORP the article talks about the company's goals and strategy as do the sources. The articles all seem to concentrate on the fact that the founder comes from a well known family and not on the business itself. These articles are useful for notability for the fpunder but not the company. That said the founder's page looks like it needs some cleaning up. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the article on the individual. This is not hopeless, and I looked at it previously and decided not to nominate for deletion, because it's more substantial than many similar articles. I think a case could be made that coverage of a prospective firm in such detail in multiple usually authoritative publications might reflect their editorial judgment that even at this point the firm is notable. I normally try to look behind the name of the journal into the actual nature of the coverage. I have read the articles, and they are not incidental mentions, or mere gossip, or pure promotionalism, but especially with the NYT, a serious discussion of the company. I would still prefer merge to keep, because I am very skeptical of the general concept of covering separately a person and his various enterprises especially when the person or firm is paying for the articles to be written here. I have in fact warned the ed. on his talk p. about this tactic, & I hope he keeps in in mind for his future work. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this article is a poor candidate to merge because it fails the core premise of WP:ATD-M: "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists." This extremely well-funded, high-profile company, with a new way of doing business for the fashion industry, is all but certain to continue to receive RS coverage for many years to come. Coverage starts in 2013 and a major new feature story appeared just last month is the fashion industry's leading news publication, WWD. Also, much of what's encyclopedic about Assembled Brands would be coatracking on a BLP, so this article cannot just be substantially merged with Adam Pritzker. Almost all of it would need to be deleted in a BLP. A merge here is essentially the same as Delete. BC1278 (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

• Keep per WP:IAR. The "new and improved WP:NCORP" is not entirely improved; it tends to assumptively eliminate all business media coverage as routine from the start, regardless of the actual content in said media, and some reporters/articles/sources are more independent than others. Then, deletionists may sometimes just say "delete per WP:SPIP, WP:NCORP ...(et al.) anyway, and sometimes don't even bother actually reading the sources, only base notability upon sources within an article (see WP:NEXIST), or even worse, don't bother to engage in WP:BEFORE searches (not saying that anyone within this discussion has done so). Not a bright precedent for the encyclopedia; it dumbs it down. Also, no prejudice against merging to Adam Pritzker as per DGG's stance above, which is correspondent with WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose the opposite is that till now, most editors assumed that if a business got a mention in a newspaper then Bingo! Sadly, it isn't the fault of NCORP that most business media coverage is crap and simply parrots the announcements or quotations or interviews. They just become extensions of a companies marketing/PR departments. All it takes is for the article to have some intellectually independent analysis or opinion but it seems most journalists/publications don't. Also, companies aren't entitled to an article unless they're notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So .. your argument boils down to you !voted Keep (ignore the rules) because you don't like/agree with NCORP? That appears to me to be a concession that the topic fails NCORP but you want to Keep the article anyway? HighKing⁺⁺ 10:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge as above as it passes WP:NCORP with rs independent coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Hi Atlantic306, can you point out the independent coverage please? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I trust DGG's judgement above, 2 NYT Times articles, Fortune and Observer sources- yes there is some interview but there is also independent comment and analysis as well. Corpdepth allows articles that contain analysis and interviews. Corpdepth should not be used to rubbish every reliable source, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Hi Atlantic306, but ... DGG !voted to Merge, not to Keep? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uhhm, what HM said. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion and been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions BC1278 (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

• Delete. Just commercial blurb. Fails WP:NCORP. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete: Big fat TOOSOON. We don't give out gold stars for the first editor to scoop Wikipedia with a new article, we're not in a rush, and we're not in a race. The answer to "this company surely will be successful enough to have an article" is "then it isn't notable enough YET to have one." Nha Trang ^Allons! 15:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of subject lacking adequate evidence of independent notability, which, graciously, shapes a generous alternative one should not refuse, i.e. Merge it. Another holding company, the type that rarely gets noticed. (I said, there are exceptions!) But perhaps the sources are there.

Are they? The New York Times piece is a portrait of the founder. Great threads but no cigar. From the Fortune article, we learn that "after graduating from Columbia University in 2008, Adam got the business bug" and other info in that vein, which is very absorbing but the company gets second billing again, in a text tellingly titled "The Prince of Sales." There's a Women's Wear Daily report that also focuses on the Prince of Sales. Then, we learn that "Adam Pritzker Might Have the Solution to Fashion’s Retail Problem" by the Observer, in a text that closes the deal on the fact that most, if not all, of those articles, are fawning infomercials really, with nary a critical or negative word in them! Apparently, everything is perfect in there. Well, I cannot suggest to keep such a text. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The fact that we're talking about an "extremely well funded" corporation, as BC1278 informs us, causes me to stumble a bit in these financially dire times we live in, but it's too darn late to change my suggestion. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepAgree with User:Northamerica1000, and WP:NEXIST applies in this case. Also agree merging to Adam Pritzker as per User:DGG's suggestion as the last option.Kaytsfan (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objection as far as I'm concerned to Merge what can be salvaged into the Adam Pritzker article, although such outcomes tend to lower the fee. -The Gnome (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by, "...although such outcomes tend to lower the fee."Kaytsfan (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say "the fee"? I meant to say "the fee." -The Gnome (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The Observer article is one example that includes substantial content 'about' Assembled Brands, even if most of the other high-pedigree references are snippets in articles primarily about the founder. If no article for the founder existed, I still think we get a (not overly strong) keep for the company. Yet the notability of founder and company, as proven by the available references at least, is substantially intertwined, and Merge with Adam Pritzker is not unreasonable. BoyRD (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing "intertwined" about notability in Wikipedia, I'm afraid. Either the subject's notable on its own, or it's not. Notability is not infectious, passed around, or inherited. -The Gnome (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. I mis-stated my final point, which is that the RS coverage is closely related and that a merge would be a reasonable outcome, even though I believe the subject meets GNG. BoyRD (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think The Gnome puts his finger on the problems nicely. The references fail to meet the criteria for notability as per NCORP (none appear to be "intellectually independent") and it is clear that some heavy promotion and wooing of the press has gone into pumping the profile of this company. The article creator, BC1278, has disclosed they were paid in the past to create this article and are no longer getting paid. I also have a very large concern that the article creator also runs a marketing and promotional company for brands with expertise in using technology and social media to achieve this aim. I would like the article creator to provide a list of articles that they have been paid to create as well as adhere to WP:COI as follows: Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation". HighKing⁺⁺ 10:59, 26 July 2018 (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.