684:, thanks for being willing to reconsider your position. FWIW, I think Prax could probably have worded a few statements differently in the interests of collegiality. Please recognise though the huge amount of work she does keeping covert spam off our project - that's frustrating work, and frustration sometimes leads to blunt turns of phrase. I'm glad we've all ended up in the same boat.
621:
and in digging more into my suspicions about Elucid, we should be blacklisting it at this point rather than considering whether it's readership is relevant. It doesn't bode well when the only identified staff on their website, in this case, their editor in chief, is openly soliciting these deceptive
573:
What about my comments was uncivil? And no, you're incorrect, none of the sources you've provided have coverage and in fact, most of the sources you've provided should be blacklisted as they are intentionally deceptive and run by, again, black hat SEO firms. (Since apparently I need to spell it out,
524:
are both completely fake sites operated by a black hat firm that promotes fake press for their clients. Sites like Elucid
Magazine might not be fake but they're certainly not known for editorial oversight nor do they have the level of readership to establish notability for the same reason a local
666:
in these discussions. Phrases such as “if you bother to look...”, “Since apparently I need to spell it out...” and “And no, you're incorrect...” demonstrates a needlessly aggressive tone when I’m trying to engage in constructive discussion, and this is not the first time I’ve felt it in your AfD
599:. Randomly clicking on three of the 'new sources' you found, I saw one which was actually labelled as an advertisement, a passing mention on someone's blog, and an obvious press release republished without so much as a byline. These sources are miles away from meeting the requirements.
515:
Most of those are press releases combined with interviews and not coverage. As for some of your other sources, if you bother to look critically at them, 3 of them are blatantly fake black hat SEO "news" sites and thus unreliable. Ie.
574:
my comments about the sources have nothing to do with you, it's about the source and the firms promoting this brand.) As far as Elucid goes, please tell me what their history is wrt editorial oversight and reliability, or perhaps
201:
289:
232:
paid for spam, non-notable brand, the sources i've removed are completely fake black hat seo sites and what's left are contributor pieces and press releases. A search reveals nothing better.
497:. Yes, there are lots of paid articles but these seem to me to be editorially independent and based on the popularity of the company and its success particularly at New York Fashion Week.
559:
to suggest that readership numbers, niche magazines or local news can’t contribute towards notability, especially when the subject is covered in multiple sources independently.
469:- almost every respectable LGBT news organisation I can find has an editorial piece on this company, plus there are lots of in depth analysis pieces. Here’s a selection:
154:
195:
249:
269:
101:
86:
445:
is not met by press releases and paid-for articles on Forbes. "Forbes", really, considering the reliability of contributor pieces relative to real
358:
350:
324:
316:
722:; the above discussion takes care of every quasi-useful search result I found. No significant coverage in a reliable secondary source, delete.
161:
533:
not a reliable source to establish notability and it's also operated by the same black hat seo firm(s) the first two I pointed out are.
366:
328:
127:
122:
361:
is almost identical save for a few words to gay star news, which means its probably a press release, but even if not, it's just an
315:- the article could certainly do with some more work but editors have made attempts in recent days to improve the article, and the
575:
474:
470:
131:
81:
74:
17:
114:
216:
183:
639:, I'm inclined to agree with you. I'm not au fait with the blacklisting process, but would support any such suggestion.
458:
296:
95:
91:
521:
490:
354:
320:
748:
40:
526:
486:
177:
672:
564:
502:
454:
336:
415:, and is therefore not reliable and confers no notability. The other sources are press releases, soft-soap
731:
698:
693:
676:
653:
648:
631:
613:
608:
587:
568:
542:
506:
461:
433:
428:
399:
378:
340:
301:
293:
281:
261:
241:
173:
56:
744:
118:
36:
627:
583:
538:
374:
237:
223:
442:
416:
277:
257:
209:
110:
62:
681:
668:
592:
560:
547:
The fact that certain ones I was unaware were on the black list aside, I would ask you to remain
498:
482:
332:
517:
494:
478:
727:
685:
640:
618:
600:
420:
70:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
743:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
395:
390:
per
Cardiffbear88's assessment. There are enough RS for this subject to pass notability. --
189:
659:
636:
623:
596:
579:
578:
of this piece? Was it endorsed by their editorial board? Do they have an editorial board?
548:
534:
370:
233:
362:
273:
253:
662:
your tone has not been particularly civil during this exchange and I would ask you to
663:
556:
552:
412:
408:
723:
53:
148:
391:
551:. Even placing those aside, there are enough sources here to demonstrate
622:
practices on fiverr...(i tried to link but fiverr is blacklisted)
529:
website which is invested in marketing and promoting clients is
739:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
407:
per nom. Prax is spot-on - that Forbes piece is written by a
595:, GNG isn't what we're discussing here - we're discussing
290:
list of
Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions
144:
140:
136:
208:
525:
podunk news outlet doesn't establish notability. And
357:
is basically just a mention and not at all coverage,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
751:). No further edits should be made to this page.
471:Editorial and interview at New York Fashion Week
288:Note: This discussion has been included in the
268:Note: This discussion has been included in the
248:Note: This discussion has been included in the
250:list of Companies-related deletion discussions
270:list of New York-related deletion discussions
222:
8:
102:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
287:
267:
247:
52:. Sources provided have been debunked
369:is just an interview. So 0 coverage.
7:
419:and passing mentions. This is spam.
24:
331:are respected LGBT news outlets.
479:editorial in a business magazine
87:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
475:analysis in a fashion magazine
441:, per Praxidicae. Simply put,
1:
77:(AfD)? Read these primers!
768:
732:02:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
699:20:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
677:16:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
654:16:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
632:16:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
614:16:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
588:16:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
569:16:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
543:15:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
507:15:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
462:15:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
434:14:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
400:14:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
379:14:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
341:04:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
302:23:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
282:14:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
262:14:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
242:14:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
57:08:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
658:OK I’ve changed my vote.
741:Please do not modify it.
491:another business website
487:another business website
353:is a contributor piece,
32:Please do not modify it.
555:. There is nothing in
75:Articles for deletion
495:another LGBT website
483:another LGBT website
319:seems substantial.
467:More sources found
451:"Fauxrbes"? Maybe.
576:who the author is
452:
304:
284:
264:
92:Guide to deletion
82:How to contribute
759:
691:
688:
646:
643:
606:
603:
450:
426:
423:
299:
227:
226:
212:
164:
152:
134:
72:
34:
767:
766:
762:
761:
760:
758:
757:
756:
755:
749:deletion review
696:
689:
686:
667:contributions.
651:
644:
641:
611:
604:
601:
431:
424:
421:
297:
169:
160:
125:
109:
106:
69:
66:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
765:
763:
754:
753:
735:
734:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
694:
649:
609:
590:
510:
509:
464:
436:
429:
402:
384:
383:
382:
381:
344:
343:
306:
305:
285:
265:
230:
229:
166:
105:
104:
99:
89:
84:
67:
65:
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
764:
752:
750:
746:
742:
737:
736:
733:
729:
725:
721:
718:
717:
700:
697:
692:
683:
682:Cardiffbear88
680:
679:
678:
674:
670:
669:Cardiffbear88
665:
661:
657:
656:
655:
652:
647:
638:
635:
634:
633:
629:
625:
620:
617:
616:
615:
612:
607:
598:
594:
593:Cardiffbear88
591:
589:
585:
581:
577:
572:
571:
570:
566:
562:
561:Cardiffbear88
558:
554:
550:
546:
545:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
523:
519:
514:
513:
512:
511:
508:
504:
500:
499:Cardiffbear88
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
465:
463:
460:
456:
448:
444:
440:
437:
435:
432:
427:
418:
414:
410:
406:
403:
401:
397:
393:
389:
386:
385:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
347:
346:
345:
342:
338:
334:
333:Cardiffbear88
330:
326:
322:
321:Gay Star News
318:
314:
312:
308:
307:
303:
300:
295:
291:
286:
283:
279:
275:
271:
266:
263:
259:
255:
251:
246:
245:
244:
243:
239:
235:
225:
221:
218:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
175:
172:
171:Find sources:
167:
163:
159:
156:
150:
146:
142:
138:
133:
129:
124:
120:
116:
112:
111:Daddy Couture
108:
107:
103:
100:
97:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
79:
78:
76:
71:
64:
63:Daddy Couture
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
740:
738:
719:
619:Girth Summit
530:
522:dailyscanner
466:
446:
443:WP:CORPDEPTH
438:
404:
387:
363:announcement
317:Forbes piece
310:
309:
231:
219:
213:
205:
198:
192:
186:
180:
170:
157:
68:
49:
47:
31:
28:
409:contributor
325:QX magazine
313:Weak Delete
196:free images
660:Praxidicae
637:Praxidicae
624:Praxidicae
580:Praxidicae
535:Praxidicae
531:definitely
417:interviews
371:Praxidicae
234:Praxidicae
745:talk page
695:(blether)
650:(blether)
610:(blether)
449:content.
430:(blether)
274:Shellwood
254:Shellwood
37:talk page
747:or in a
549:WP:CIVIL
518:bestinau
411:, it is
155:View log
96:glossary
39:or in a
724:Ikjbagl
329:Out.com
202:WP refs
190:scholar
128:protect
123:history
73:New to
54:Spartaz
720:Delete
690:Summit
664:WP:AGF
645:Summit
605:Summit
557:WP:GNG
553:WP:GNG
459:(talk)
447:Forbes
439:Delete
425:Summit
405:Delete
392:Kbabej
174:Google
132:delete
50:delete
687:Girth
642:Girth
602:Girth
597:NCORP
422:Girth
217:JSTOR
178:books
162:Stats
149:views
141:watch
137:links
16:<
728:talk
673:talk
628:talk
584:talk
565:talk
539:talk
527:this
520:and
503:talk
396:talk
388:Keep
375:talk
367:this
365:and
359:this
355:this
351:this
349:No,
337:talk
327:and
311:Keep
278:talk
258:talk
238:talk
210:FENS
184:news
145:logs
119:talk
115:edit
455:PMC
413:UGC
294:gnu
224:TWL
153:– (
730:)
675:)
630:)
586:)
567:)
541:)
505:)
493:,
489:,
485:,
481:,
477:,
473:,
457:♠
398:)
377:)
339:)
323:,
298:57
292:.
280:)
272:.
260:)
252:.
240:)
204:)
147:|
143:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
121:|
117:|
726:(
671:(
626:(
582:(
563:(
537:(
501:(
453:♠
394:(
373:(
335:(
276:(
256:(
236:(
228:)
220:·
214:·
206:·
199:·
193:·
187:·
181:·
176:(
168:(
165:)
158:·
151:)
113:(
98:)
94:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.