Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel & Co.

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. Keep votes have failed to identiy sources that can provide SIGCOV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel & Co.

[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. Not satisfied with the reliability of sources. I could not find anything else online either. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, Lebanon, United States of America, and New York. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he company has significant notability within the jewelry industry, evidenced by extensive coverage in reputable sources such as industry publications and mainstream media. Additionally, the article provides verifiable information about the company's history, product offerings, and impact on the market that meets gng --Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources you could find that establish notability? GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A week later and no response ... comment such as "within the jewellry industry" seems to me to indicate that it is a niche company and "extensive coverage in reputable sources" and "the article contains verifiable information" indicated a lack of knowledge of the GNG/WP:NCORP notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: if you are arguing to Keep this article, please share source that can be used to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I have to agree wth Pandora. The sources seems to satisfy WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaskedSinger which sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP? Really appreciate if you can indicate source/page/paragraph or some other content that meets CORPDEPTH and ORGIND in particular. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did a spot check of a few references, and they read like PR/puff pieces. Lean delete, per WP:CORPDEPTH.-KH-1 (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the many JCK articles mentioning the company were SIGCOV and independent (they are not), this would still only count as one niche industry source, not the multiple pieces of SIRS coverage in broader media. The lack of anything outside press releases and announcements from affiliated groups suggests NORG cannot be met. JoelleJay (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2024 (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.