Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rue La La

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. Broad consensus that coverage of the company is not deep or extensive enough to establish notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rue La La

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company is only marginally notable, if that. Current article is badly sourced and unsourced - refs are press releases, blurbs about funding or other events where it is mentioned in passing, the company website itself, and directories. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is part of a student assignment so if the consensus here is to delete, I would like to request that the article be sent back to the student's userspace so it can be further worked on and so the teacher can grade their work. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Is that normal in Wiki Ed? Because it certainly sounds like a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST to me. St Anselm (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the student is going to work on the page - if they weren't, then I'd be less inclined to ask for it to be moved. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that these sources that are currently cited are sufficiently independent of the company that they do establish WP:ORGIND: [1], [2], and [3]. I looked and also found [4] and [5]. I think that all of these sources satisfy the criteria at WP:CORPDEPTH. Taken together, I think that this is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the promotionalism outweighs any marginal notability the subject may or may not have. The sources above are not convincing for notability -- they are either trade press, or local to the business, such as "A look at Rue La La's Cool Office" or "Rue La La is Looking for Funding". Neither types meets WP:AUD / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This just reads like an advertorial to me. This company doesn't seem notable enough for its own page, and there are no controversies etc. that would make the page more important, useful, or balanced. Clawsyclaw (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I read the "article" Rue La La And NBC's "Access Hollywood" Ink Partnership in The Street, I was completely in the KEEP camp. But then I noticed that the "article" was not an article at all, I was a PR Newwire press release that looked like an article. The more convincing case for KEEP is the Yahoo article and the two articles[6][7] which are Boston Globe related. For the most part, I don't buy the argument that the article reads like an advertisement/PR piece. but footnote #15 (which is "Rue La La Announces International E-Commerce Capabilities". PRNewswire. PRNewswire) needs to be given the heave-ho. The problem with the content related to footnote 15 is it is based on something the company is developing and not something it has actually implemented. And to make matters worse, it is a fairly complex project that could easily get delayed repeatedly.Knox490 (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yahoo.com and boston.com articles are alo essentially press releases, which allow him to say what he wants, and to celebrate his work. They don't read as journalism. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on sources in article , comments above and a proquest search on "Rue La La". of the 50 hits on the first page of that search, all but 2 were press releases. The 2 exceptions were the Boston Globe stories mentioned above. In this case, the Globe is local coverage, but even if it were not, 2 stories would not suffice to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2017 (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.