Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloss Media

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 speedy delete. I already deleted the page per speedy criteria G5 and G11 (created by a sock of Hamaze01; unambiguously promotional) as well as the numerous copies in draft space that had not yet been deleted. However, the unanimous (excepting the sockpuppet) sentiment of this discussion is that the topic is not suitable for the encyclopedia, hence this is a close per WP:SNOW. Recreations of this page should be deleted per WP:G4. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gloss Media

[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)

completely and utterly non-notbale site sourced entirely to blackhat SEO sites (paid for publications), press releases and business listings. Praxidicae (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This comment and request for deletion is blatantly incorrect. Did you even review the references? If you did, you will have seen that there are references from Vogue, Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance, dlisted, The Guardian, etc, etc. I have reviewed your other contributions and it appears that you like to throw around the "not notable site sourced by blackhat seo sites" comment quite regularly without actually reading the article and references. This is not helpful to the wikipedia community at all. What's more, I tried to have a conversation about this on your talk page and you ignored me. Alas, I feel that this article should not be deleted. The subject is notable and the references are properly sourced PiratePuppy (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo Finance is a press release, bloomberg is a listing, Vogue is a single passing mention and the rest are literally paid for. Perhaps you should read WP:PAID. Praxidicae (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are not looking at all the articles. dlisted, flying geze, viral cola, etc, are definitely not paid for sites. Dlisted is one of the largest celebrity magazines in the celebrity market. Also, how can you not say the subject is notable? Given they just worked with the Rock, that seems pretty notable? Anyway, I tried to work this out with you on your talk page as previously noted and you failed to engage with me, so I guess we need an impartial third party to review this article and decide for themselves. I'm sorry we weren't able to come to an understanding between the both of us :( PiratePuppy (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking in circles. None of those are WP:RS. This is an obviously promotional, non-notable and likely paid for piece that has fabricated sources with no basis in reality. Praxidicae (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback and your opinions of my rebuttable, but again I disagree. I am not talking in circles. I tried to communicate with you on your talk page about this but you would not engage. I feel you have lost objectivity, but let's see what an independent, third party reviewer thinks when they have reviewed the article and all references in totality. PiratePuppy (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Want to explain where you got the Alexa numbers from, that you used as a source, despite the source itself not even being remotely related to Gloss Media? In fact, Alexa shows it ranking somewhere in the high millions, but you decided to fabricate it by linking to WorldStarHipHop. Care to explain? Praxidicae (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same article? The alexa numbers were in a previous draft which I removed quite a while ago (well before your above comment) as I noticed it was an error. There was no "fabrication". But in using this terminology, you are again using language which is clearly non objective. I am happy to defer to another independent, arms length reviewer to read the entire article and references. Thanks PiratePuppy (talk)

Too late for another reviewer, you ignored the declines and past reviews, so now it's at AFD. I will not be rescinding it. And the idea that you didn't include it is laughable - you included a source that is blatantly false (bigtimedaily) and an unsupported statement that they rank 235th in page views with 2.5 billion a month, a blatant lie. Or are you saying you did not type this into the draft? You can easily tell that this is untrue by looking at Alexa. Praxidicae (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not sure why you are always so mad. Editing wikipedia is supposed to be fun and informative. We are supposed to learn and support each other. You are the opposite of these things. You are not warm and inviting, and looking at your own talk page, it is clear that you are generally and consistently confrontational. It is sad that you feel that you need to act this way. Nobody was lying or fabricating anything, I simply put in an incorrect url. The balance of the article was correct with fully notable references. But you continue with whatever conspiracy theories make you happy. Have a nice day PiratePuppy (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this frippery per nom. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. This article has already been created twice by sockpuppets under the title Gloss (media), and has been deleted both times. The sourcing in the article is entirely junk - Press releases, Social media, User submitted content and passing mentions. The high quality sources in the article (bbc, the guardian) do not mention Gloss media at all, not even a credit to confirm that they were the source of the video as claimed. This article would probably qualify for speedy deletion (A7, G11) 192.76.8.81 (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it would also qualify for G5 [1]. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are trivial mentions, press release churnalism, or apparent native advertising. - MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best sources don't mention Gloss and are therefore worthless. Some are passing mentions. Some are promotional baloney about raising a couple million dollars, which is chump change. Some sources are the obvious result of press releases and promotionalism. Then there are references to Instagram - how absurd! There is not a single reference to a high quality independent source devoting significant coverage to Gloss as a business venture. Fails WP:NCORP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:06, 23 November 2020 (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.