Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menē Inc.

Menē Inc.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Menē Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. Refs are PR, routine business news and press-releases. scope_creep^Talk 06:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, sources verify that this is a well-known company co-founded by the well-known granddaughter of Pablo Picasso. Notability has been established. Please also contact WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as the creator of this page, I responded to any and all feedback from far more editors than just Scope creep. Other editors chimed in and removed material that may have run afoul of WP:Promo. The sources included are demonstrably more than just "...PR...", or "...routine business news..." and certainly not all are mere "press releases." Respectfully, the nom should familiarize himself with WP:BEFORE and close this nomination in favor of keep TY— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per above, sources are in-depth in their coverage of the company, though I would improve the citations (including Reference 5, YouTube isn't generally a reliable source). Tails Wx 16:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Its amazes me how many people are willing to suspend Wikipedias consenus regarding established policy to save a brochure advertising article, in an attempt to help some friends, that looks awfully like canvassing. Pablo Picasso has nothing to do with it, as notability is not inherited and posting the vogue and the NY articles links as though they are valid references is a woeful, particularly when they are so obviously PR and read like PR is woeful. We will go through the references. Any suspicion of socking behaviour will immediately be reported to SPI. scope_creep^Talk 17:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  No one is suspending a single item "regarding established policy", and cleanup was made regarding your initial comments which were valid. Your opposition now seems to be based more in a refusal to accept the consensus as it now stands regarding the article. You may continue to hammer your same points over and over, but that does not make them any more valid than previously. Maybe read up on what PR actually is. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Please everyone, assume good faith, in everybody. No need to name call or get into areas outside of the topic. Picasso, on her own, is notable, she doesn't have to inherit it from her grandfather. A known art curator and historian. This sourced page correctly takes her notability into account. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Fair point Randy Kryn. Appreciate the reminder. It is always an important point that cannot be emphasized enough, the WP:AGF tenet. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  She has plenty about her on her own too, you are 100% correct. Here is her page, Diana Widmaier Picasso. In no way was this about 'inherited notability' at any time. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - passes GNG - (just added 7 more RS in comment below, including Barrons, Vogue, Financial Times), the NYTimes article is cited, as are several others but the company also has an article in Vogue (magazine), and Elle (magazine) that could be used to expand the article a bit more. The nom apparently did not perform an adequate WP:BEFORE because the sources are there. Sometimes it is difficult to determine whether or not the content about a notable business is promo or straight-up information describing why the business is notable - there is a fine line, especially when jewelry and fashion are involved. Liken it to use-distinction and how certain articles use terms like "hit a homerun", or "it was a successful year for the team", or describing a movie as "thrilling". In this particular case, it is gold jewelry by notable designers but with emphasis on the composition and weight of each piece. I toned it down a lot, but we cannot completely eliminate what makes the business notable, or that it mines gold and platinum in the US & Canada, and one of the company's unique aspects include its trademark, its designers, and its history. That type of content about a notable business is not promotion when the tone is matter-of-fact. Atsme 💬 📧 02:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Per policy WP:GNG doesn't apply for companies, it is WP:NCORP and has been since 2016. scope_creep^Talk 10:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not "per policy" because those are guidelines, not policies. In fact, GNG clearly states: WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards, lacking the weight of broad consensus of the general and subject-specific notability guidelines in various discussions (such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). Based on this AfD discussion, the keeps are very strong, especially when matched against your single delete. The article satisfies significant coverage per GNG: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.. Vogue magazine, Elle, the NYTimes, and the multiple listings in investment news such as Bloomberg, etc. are quite sufficient to satisfy our policies, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT and WP:NEXIST. Keep in mind, this company is about fashionable jewelry and investment, thus the citing of coverage in the sources used. That does not make it promotional – it is factual information in the Fashion and/or Investment sections. I doubt the company will be covered by CNN Headline News, unless they get robbed, or in a published book by an academic or historian, at least not this early in time. It's notable based on all the keep iVotes. Atsme 💬 📧14:05, February 26, 2023

• Let me roll in here on this. There has been much debate on how NCORP is applied and the takeaway (i.e. consensus) is that NCORP does not change the requirements of GNG but instead lays out precisely how sources are to be examined with a view on notability. Put another way - if a topic passes GNG then it must also pass NCORP - if it doesn't, it means GNG wasn't correctly applied. Similary if a topic passes NCORP it must pass GNG. Other SNGs (usually the ones for specialized functions such as for academics and professors or for geographic features) have added additional criteria to establish notability - this isn't the case for NCORP. Also, the GNG section you've quoted from confirms all of this and says that SNG can provide *examples* of sources and types of coverage considered significant (which is what NCORP does) and goes on to confirm this saying the strict coverage requirements spelled our in the SNG for organizations and companies. Getting back to what you've said at the start - you say the article satisfies "significant coverage" as per GNG. I agree, there is a significant coverage but it is not "Independent Content" (see WP:ORGIND). Each source must meet all of the criteria (see WP:SIRS) so the other sections can't just be ignored willy-nilly. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• While your criticism is offered in GF, I've always been the kind of editor who gracefully accepts constructive criticism from collaborators, but this is not one of those times. Your criticism is based on the wrong guideline, and fails to take into consideration the last few sentences of WP:ORGSIG as follows: However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products, though articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable per WP:NOTADVERTISING. We already cleaned-up the prose - it's not PROMO - and we established the fact that Mene is not a local company that works out of a garage. One of the founders owns a goldmine or two, and the co-founder is an art historian and curator, and granddaughter of Picasso. Their products are on display internationally in notable museums, and we have barely begun to explore all the coverage per WP:NEXIST relating to some of the artful, historic design of the jewelry. You are also incorrect about "independent content" as well as independent sources, and it appears you don't have a really good handle on what makes a source independent, or perhaps I misunderstood you? Significant coverage in independent sources has already been established, so let's not belabor the obvious. There is zero connection with the cited sources and Mene. I just added an additional 7 independent sources below, such as Barrons, Vogue, Financial Times, Architectural Digest, and MarketWatch. Forgive me for taking advantage of this opportunity to suggest that you consider becoming an NPP reviewer after taking one of the tutorial courses at WP:NPPSCHOOL. We have highly experienced teachers who can help polish some of the rough edges in your approach to notability, and also validate what you already know to true. It can be as much fun as you make it. We need confident, competent reviewers, who fully understand the process, and what makes an article notable or worthy of inclusion. NPPSCHOOL does a very good job at it, and we are always in need of good reviewers. Atsme 💬 📧 19:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• WP:NCORP (in conjunction with GNG) is the correct guideline for companies, big and small alike. It is notable that you mention the founders as a reason of notability but notability isn't inherited - see WP:INHERITORG. The products are not the subject of this article so articles that are about the product (without providing in-dept info on the company) don't assist in establishing notability of the company. Thanks for your opinion on what you believe my level of understanding of what makes a source "Independent" but for me, it is you that hasn't grasped the following part of WP:ORGIND - "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. Can you point out a paragraph within any of the sources you've listed which contains something that meets this requirement? I'll post my analysis of sources below (actually I see that an analysis was already done and I agree with it). Thank you for your suggestion that I need to take a NPPSCHOOL tutorial - perhaps instead I'll point to my experience at NCORP-related AfDs where you will clearly see my !voting tends to be much more in line with consensus (and therefore an understanding of the guidelines) that your own. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The fact the reference has been written by the NY Times doesn't necessarily make it valid. The NY Times takes the advertising dollar as much anybody else on the planet and they are as good at writing PR as anybody else on the planet. Lets looks at the references.

• Ref 1 [1] This is PR that fails WP:SIRS. It is not in-depth and is essentially an interview failing WP:ORGIND.
• Ref 2 [2] A case report for buying stock. Most of the content comes from the website and company publications. It is not independent and fails WP:SIRS.
• Ref 3 [3] This reads like PR and its interview failing WP:ORGIND.
• Ref 4 [4] Press-release fails WP:SIRS
• Ref 5 [5] Interview with Roy Sebag. Non-RS It is non-rs, WP:PRIMARY and fails WP:SIRS.
• Ref 6 [6] Not independent, reads like a press-release and fails WP:SIRS. Non-RS
• Ref 7 [7] PR. Single paragraph, not significant coverage, fails WP:SIRS.
• Ref 8 [8] The shop itself, which is non-RS and shows its a brochure article.
• Ref 9 [9] Classic PR. "Though the line has just launched", "Cohosted by Mene’s Diana Widmaier Picasso" It a launch event. Fails WP:ORGIND, and WP:SIRS.

Looking at the 9 references, 2 are non-rs, 1 is a press-release, 3 are interviews 1 is a small case report that is not in-depth, 2 are PR. Not a single secondary source that satisfies WP:SIRS. There has been an attempt to update the article per WP:HEYMANN to remove very obvious WP:PROMO content that read like a marketing skit, but what is left is equallly worthless as its all comes from the company. The case report which is a direct copy of blog and company content including their public financials would have been the best ref if it was truly indepenent. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 10:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• WP:NEXIST, the cited sources pass "significant coverage", and there is no PROMO. Investment jewelry is quite notable as demonstrated in Marketwatch, yet another source I just found that includes information about Mene, and it is not trivial.
• Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.

  Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.

• Reviewers should already know this. Atsme 💬 📧 18:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a load of waffle and doesn't address the fact that the references are really weak and don't support WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 08:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Well, looky here - I found more RS, imagine that! I'd say this article is a WP:SK so upgrading my iVote.

1. Barrons
2. Vogue
3. Financial Times
4. Architectural Digest
5. TMX Money
6. The French Jewelry Post
7. In Store Magazine

And there are more. I'm pretty sure notability has been established. This is what NPP reviewers are expected to do before nomming an article for AfD - WP:BEFORE Atsme 💬 📧 17:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Response Not a single source above meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. These are either PR, interviews or puff profiles, none of which contain "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. Can you highlight a specific section or paragraph which you believe meets the criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a public WP:LISTED company so surely analysts and the financial press are covering it to some extent. Investors need to know what they're putting their money into. At the least there should be press to be found around their IPO when they were selling the company to investors. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  wbm1058, I don't think the TSX really meets the level of attention the NYSE to merit assumption of sources. If this company was listed on the TSX 60, I think that argument could be made, but that is not the case for Mene. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Well it isn't listed on the CSE like Wikileaf, Curaleaf, and NameSilo. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  I've been looking into the company to find other sources and it didn't have an IPO. Instead, the company stock was renamed in a long history of renaming. There was some post-IPO funding rounds, apparently, but no one reported on them. The company is listed on a comparatively minor stock exchange (TSXV, which is not the same as the TSX). There is a history of financial press releases from the company but no one seems to be republishing them, let alone doing any analysis on them. Even their own media press releases aren't being picked up.

  I don't know what counts as notable or not but all of this stock stuff is definitely routine. Cauldron bubble (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

While there is usually consensus that listed company get an article, it contingent on the references being able to support it. These are type of arguments you don't mention at Afd, because Wikipedia isn't a investment advice company. Does it say that when you login in the morning, that its an investment advice company? It is has been five years since the IPO and yet the article still relies on crap PR and press releases to validate itself which fail WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 08:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - Easy keep based on strong sources. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines apply which requires references that discuss the topic (ie the *company*) in detail. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet all the criteria for establishing notability - at least two deep or significant sources 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. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Also, quantity of "significant coverage" isn't relevant - a million "mentions" or single paragraph descriptions does not meet the criteria, nor can multiple sources be combined.

In this case, we don't have that. Most of the references rely on information provided by the company or are very generic repetitions of the company description. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

In this case, we actually do have that, several times over. Have you reviewed each of the sources? Some, you are right, might not. But tell me please how this one would not qualify based on WP:NCORP? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Response Hi Moops, yes I have reviewed every source offered in the article and at this AfD (which is the way I always start with any AfD) and I have also looked for other articles and books including newspaper archives at the Wikipedia Library. The NYT article does not qualify because it does not contain sufficient "Independent Content" which is "in-depth". The article starts in a very generic way - it describes what the company does (sells jewelry, priced by weight, origin of name, recent investment) but this is not in-depth, it is a summary and one which pops up frequently. For example, this article written a year later has striking similarities and structure. The article moves on to the founders and their opinions on the business - it is clearly regurgitated without "Independent Content" which requires original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If I've missed some Independent Content which you believe is in-depth, please point to the specific paragraph. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you know about newspapers, how they make their money and how they actually work? scope_creep^Talk 20:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that you want to change the entire way that Wikipedia works and the type of sourced content that is deemed reliable or independent. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment User:Atsme in the comment added the following references. Lets looks at them:

• Ref 1: Barrons This is an interview with the founder. Per WP:ORGIND, it fails the Independence of the content clause as the founder is talking about their own company.
• Ref 2; Vogue Again fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH because it the founder and their partner talking about the business with a vogue photographer present. Not only a very short report that is not in-depth, it is classic PR in the simplest terms.
• Ref 3 Financial Times This has a single para and in an another interview with the founder. It fails WP:ORGIND as its the founder is talking their own company again. This is typical of the type of PR that startups produce.
• Ref 4 Architectural Digest This is interview with the founder, in her own house. Per WP:ORGIND it is a junk.
• Ref 5 TMX Money This is a press-release which NON-RS.
• Ref 6 The French Jewelry Post This is a plain advertisement which comes from a press-release. Its fails WP:SIRS. It is not independent and is PR. It is so plainly obvious that this is a press release that I'm starting to worry that the editor doesn't understand the difference between a good and a bad reference. It is non-rs.
• Ref 7 In Store Magazine It states on the third para, according to a press release from the company. It is non-rs.

This attempt to supply WP:THREE references per Afd best practice has been a wholesale failure. The core problem is that company is spending a lot of money on PR to advertise their business which results in lots and lots of advertising articles. They are not historically or encyclopædically valid which is reflected in the fact they hit WP notability policies around companies. A WP:BEFORE that I did found the same of kind of PR coverage typical of a startups. I couldn't find a single valid secondary on the company. scope_creep^Talk 20:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Enough! I'm not going to engage with you in this nonsense. Let the closer do their job. I have provided excellent sources for "sig coverage", and your comments are neither helpful nor applicable. Atsme 💬 📧 20:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Hang on - you've produced 7 references which you claim establishes notability. Other editors then have an opportunity to examine those sources against our policies and guidelines. Your argument would be better served by pointing out sections or paragraphs or content within those sources which you believe contains in-depth Independent Content. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• There are many notable sources listed, with nitpicking objections. You know, it would be nice if more nominators withdrew their noms at some point, it happens occasionally but not often enough for a collaborative project. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Hmmm ... "notable sources" is not a criteria for establishing notability but I see that editors occasionally form an opinion that articles published in well known publications must meet our criteria which isn't the case. What you call "nitpicking objections" are far from it, the sources fail at a very fundamental level which is they are not Independent. BTW, the same invitation extends to any editor who wishes to point to a particular section/paragraph in any of those sources which they believe contains in-depth Independent Content. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not independent of the New York Times, Vogue, Architectural Digest etc? Well, Picasso's grandkid sure owns a lot of very high quality newspapers and magazines! Randy Kryn (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• You might be referring to the "functional independence" part of being independent (i.e. no corporate links) but ignoring "intellectual independence" (i.e. independent content not regurgitated from company sources). I've posted the full definition from WP:ORGIND above. The invitation to refute the rejection of those sources by pointing to sections/paragraphs that contain in-depth independent Content still stands, but I would understand completely if nobody actually can manage to do so. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  Second attempt at a rebuttal to this ongoing chat. The following was a correction issued by the New York Times piece. The article was written on May 10th, 2018, but the correction was issued on May 11th, 2018. Such a correction would not be issued on some pay-to-play 'PR piece', but then again, literally only one, maybe two contributors to this conversation have even made that unfounded allegation regarding the nature and type of the sources involved here. In this case, here is a quote taken from the source, and it is just a paragraph, if this too is deleted as a WP:COPYVIO then we have an issue of trying to censor dissenting opinion on this. However I suspect this post will be allowed to stand:

  A correction was made on May 11, 2018 An earlier version of this article, relying on incorrect information from a company official, misstated who photographed a campaign featuring Isabella Rossellini. The campaign was photographed by Paola Kudacki, not Inez van Lamsweerde and Vinoodh Matadin.[10]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/fashion/jewelry-mene-gold-value.html

  — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• See WP:STRAWMAN. The reason for my Delete !vote on this article is because I cannot identify any in-depth content about the *company* which is original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Nobody said this was a pay-to-play PR Piece. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. I became aware of this AfD from watching some comments at user talk pages, and I'll start by saying that editors need to discuss this civilly, and without seeing a deletion discussion as being a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I've looked at several of the sources, and I come down on the side of believing that they satisfy the requirements for independent and significant coverage. Although some of the sources do indeed fail these criteria, there are enough that satisfy the criteria that the page passes GNG. Articles like those in the New York Times and Barrons are good examples of appropriate sources. It's a misunderstanding to say that they fail independence because they talk to or interview connected persons, or because they present the subject in favorable terms (something that tends to follow coverage of celebrities). These are independent journalists who made an independent determination that the subject is noteworthy, and, having done so, talk to people connected with the subject and present the subject as something that is interesting. That's not at all the same thing as reprinting a press release (although, again, there are some cited sources that are like that). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for reminding all of us (myself included) of that fact. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment, I think we may also benefit from keeping the following essay in mind WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, in this case. While not perfect by any stretch, and no one was claiming perfection, the minimum sources required here are more than sufficient to meet SIGCOV and GNG—though the 'house' may still be in construction of the article—we do not wish to 'demolish' a work while it is still a 'house being built'. It is beyond draftspace stages, but not yet perfect per se.— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 23:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion not salient to the Afd itself

You know what this is an example of?, a nomination which stays open way too long after it is obvious that a Keep "verdict" has been obtained. I've written about it a bit in a user essay WP:SHADOWOFKEEP. Some editors will take a look at their nomination, ascertain that it's not going to work, and withdraw it. Those editors deserve praise. When a "_fD" goes on too long editors start to bicker and call names, emotions are stirred up, and the result that is present is finally made obvious in a close and then everybody waits and carbs up until next time. These should be some of the highest quality conversations on Wikipedia, and when a Keep is reached much of the time it could be acknowledged and graciously accepted, yes? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC) That would be a wonderful outcome and I would be happy to move on to other matters... namely, reverting high volumes of vandalism, which is truly my favorite thing to do. :) — Moops ⋠T⋡ 23:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Just finished that essay as well. Well done. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 23:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Thank you Moops. I had just edited it, encouraged, driven forward, dog-and-pony-half-time-show, feeling verified by this AfD. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note Certain editors here appear to be in a hurry to rush to close this AfD. We don't decide by counting !votes btw. There are blanket statements that various sources meet the criteria. These sources have been rebutted, with reasons provided based on GNG/NCORP guidelines. Can those editors who disagree deal with these rebuttals - very simply, point to particular sections/paragraphs in whatever sources that you believe contains in-depth "Independent Content" and if you can do this, I'm sure the Delete !voters will agree the topic is notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'd like to perhaps know what exactly you are looking for that might be missing from the sources listed in your view. Let us take just one source at a time then.. I think the New York Times source is a good place to start. Nearly anything in that source qualifies from what I can see as reliable, independent and meet the requirements of GNG/NCORP guidelines. I mentioned a correction from a piece above as well, in reference to how this article in particular is not some 'pay-to-play' PR piece of puffery. I am at a loss for what else specifically might be requested here, but I am interested in helping, since somehow you don't seem to see what the rest of us see when looking at these articles. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Moops, good idea, lets get into details. I'll ignore the WP:STRAWMAN "pay-to-play PR" arguments - I've not said that at all. You say that "nearly everything from that source qualifies as reliable, independent and meets the requirements of GNG/NCORP". I've already provided commentary on why that NYT piece does not meet the criteria earlier above and you've not engaged with that there so I'll repeat here with added detail.

• The article starts in a very generic way - it describes what the company does (sells jewelry, priced by weight, origin of name, recent investment) but this is not in-depth, it is a summary and one which pops up frequently. Most of the key points are from Mene's website. For example, the website explains that prices fluctuate in real-time based on the prevailing gold market price and the announcement of raising capital. The "ancient name" is also explained on the "about" page of the website. The listing and prices of the various products doesn't talk about the *company* - it doesn't add any information about the company. The article then moves on to discuss the *founders* and their opinions on the business - so information from persons associated with the company.
• So first step, identify the content that meets WP:ORGIND and in the process ignore any remaining content which is *not* original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. It could be argued that there is some degree of fact-checking in relation to the pieces for sale on the website, their prices and the identification of the most expensive piece and it could be argued that saying the "most unusual piece" is the fully functional gold mastercard is an opinion. None of that though is about the company so for me, that content is ignored for the purposes of establishing notability.
• The information about the announcement of having raised finance is also on the website which also contains the news about the business about to create it "offline retain business". So that's not "Independent Content" either.
• Then we're left with the information about the founders including direct quotes and their opinions on aspects of the business. There is no additional content here, the journalist/publication does not add any of their own opinion or analysis, just regurgitates the opinions and/or facts provided by the founders. None of that is "Independent Content" either.
• We can also see that the company had a very comprehensive "Press Package" available in 2017 to coincide with their "invitation only" launch - still available here. There are also other announcements available on their website containing a lot of information you can see regurgitated in most of the articles - e.g. here.
• I've also pointed to a very similar article from March 2019 in The Globe and Mail where you can see the similarities but also see how articles like these are merely regurgitating information provided by the company.
• As per WP:SIRS, each reference must meet all the criteria for establishing notability. Once you ignore the content that fails ORGIND, there's really very little left, and that is not enough to meet CORPDEPTH.

So, putting it bluntly, it seems that it is blatantly obvious to some of the editors here who spend a lot of time at NCORP-related AfDs that the sources are puff pieces, PR, spam, etc, which contain zero "Independent Content". It is coverage, sure, in reliable sources, sure. But it isn't significant - just common-or-garden business-as-usual corporate activity - and it definitely isn't "Independent Content" as you can see. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

An exellent and absolutely accurate exposition there @HighKing:. scope_creep^Talk 14:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not understanding what page you're looking at. The Vogue article alone is a full article, and the page is becoming better sourced daily. Per and in the spirit of WP:SHADOWOFKEEP (a non-award winning user essay) this discussion should have been closed long ago (probably on its first day). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Doubtful. I've worked through the sources cited. 1 and 2 have some discussion of the company, but mainly say that the stock is down. 3 is a listing. 4,7,8,9,11,12 and 13 are not independent (suggesting that Randy Kryn does not understand what is meant here by notable). 5 seems a good source, but just one. 6 and 10 are, for me, behind paywalls so I can't check. Maproom (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm.. 6 is the New York Times piece which is super important to this, not the only one, but an essential one. Anyone know how Maproom might be able to at least view the content if it is behind a paywall? Same question also for 10 (another good one, Marketwatch source). — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have a subscription to the NYT, so I can read the entire article. I'll try to summarize it here, without directly copying:

  1. First two paragraphs: Says that there is a new trend in the jewelry industry, growing out of a trend in the fashion industry, and that a new company, Mene, exemplifies this, by "par[ing] jewelry back to its elements" and basing prices on weight.
  2. 3rd paragraph: explains what the company name means.
  3. 4th paragraph: lists the kinds of products sold.
  4. 5th paragraph: describes how prices fluctuate day-to-day.
  5. 6th paragraph: names most expensive piece, and most unusual piece.
  6. 7th paragraph: describes money raised, and names the co-founders as a financier, and Picasso's granddaughter.
  7. 8–13th: Ms. Picasso's background and reasons for being interested in the company.
  8. 14–15th: names friends of Ms. Picasso who have come to work for the company.
  9. 16–17th: describes financial success of the business.
  10. 18–26th: discusses another company, in France, as a second example of this new business trend.

  In my opinion, this is an independently written article by a journalist, about what the source considers a significant new trend in the jewelry business. It places Mene within this trend, and gives it a primary position in the trend. It begins with Mene, and devotes about two thirds of the article to Mene, presenting it as an important new company. All of it is written as statements in the NYT's voice, and not in language such as "according to the company....". It's written in a very favorable tone, but it still reads (to me) as journalistic rather than as a puff piece. To me, it is secondary, independent, and significant (at least as significant as anything about a jewelry website can be). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  TY kindly for that Tryptofish for providing that for @Maproom: or anyone else that may wish to see the above. I think this about sums up my thinking on this as well regarding the New York Times piece (or source 6 unless the order changes as more sources are added continually, "...an independently written article by a journalist, about what the source considers a significant new trend in the jewelry business. It places Mene within this trend, and gives it a primary position in the trend.... — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Also this is behind a paywall too, this one that was provided by HighKing. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete: This is a lot closer call than some would like. For the record, I come to this discussion after commenting in a marginally connected MfD. On the merits I find myself largely in agreement with the nominator's frustration and analysis of sources, apparently in some agreement with User:Maproom and User:HighKing. While sources exist, there's a lot of connected, semi-connected and routine business news. Some unfortunate badgering here (it's obviously NOT a speedy keep), and contributors would be wise to knock off extraneous characterization or pre-closing. This process is showering nobody with glory, and tarnishing some. BusterD (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  The news here was that there was a new business model, while on the surface that may seem routine, bringing an entirely new business model to the Western world from what apparently has been ancient practice in the East is in large part the news here. Some sources at the very least I am strained to see how they might not establish notability of this company. Surely, there are mentions of other companies that are less notable, or not notable entirely, such as a French competitor that was spun up apparently after the creation of Mene called 'Le Gramme' which also uses this new technique of selling by weight and aiming to do things with a certain degree of transparently (also it would seem an old practice in the far east, but a novel one in the West). This sort of quote would not establish notability of 'Le Gramme', The French company Le Gramme also focuses on absolute minimalism, even naming its products by their metric weight., but then again, we are not trying to establish notability for 'Le Gramme', rather we are documenting the fact that the entirety of several pieces is dedicated to this firm, Mene Inc. Whether or not the reliable, secondary sources "get their information directly from the company" seems to me to be a bit beyond the scope of our job as wikipedia editors. We are to find reliable sources, as established by community consensus, clearly Vogue, The New York Times, and Marketwatch, at bare minimum are reliable, and their coverage is nearly entirely if not entirely on the subject at hand. That coverage is also independent, unless it were established that Mene Inc., or Roy Sebag, somehow is a majority shareholder in any of the related media companies, but to my knowledge, he is not. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  As I said above, I've been working on the article. This idea of jewelry as a way to invest in gold is not new or confined to the "East" (which is honestly a cringey term. It's better to name the specific countries since their existence need not be defined by their position relative to North America): this article from 2013 talks about that very concept.

  Everything I've seen written about the company is a regurgitation of its press releases and wording; no one is analyzing the company, its approach, its product quality, its market share, its relationship to the co-founder's mining company, or deviating from the press release script the company has provided.

  Instead, I just keep finding little weird things, like the series of stock renames, or claiming a trademark phrase that doesn't exist because they abandoned the filing, or stamping pure platinum with "24K" which is a gold-only measure of purity (platinum purity is always denoted by a zero followed by three digits to represent purity, 0.999 being the most pure). Cauldron bubble (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  Response – Named Countries in regards to the East, might include India as one of the most prominently cited, China, Japan, and others. India though is definitely the biggest in this context as to using jewelry measured by weight and by gram as a form of savings or investment. That is the 'novel concept' by and large here that makes this company stand out in some regards and differentiates them as notable from any standard/run-of-the-mill or other 'normal' jewelry company. The coverage reflects that in the ideas put forth by this company's founder as we can tell named Roy Sebag, and then artistically they work with the Diana Widmaier Picasso figure, though it is really Sebag's ideas that most establish a uniquely notable position for this company and its inclusion as an encyclopedic article. The stamping of '24K' pure and anything like that are important only because that is not common practice for nearly any other jewelry company in 'the West' (USA, UK, Europe etc.) today, especially with big brand companies such as Tiffany's which—if you are lucky—might sell you 18K metal products, and not by weight with a clear and transparent premium stating what the profit margin is (in the case of Mene it is around ~30%... though it used to be around ~15–20%... so clearly they have had to raise prices and tighten their profit margin... the business model does not work as well in the West as in the East). Those terms are expedients by the way, and not ideal, but I did not want to have to list out the entirety of the countries each and every time I spoke of them. Not everything written about these is 'regurgitation of its press releases', by any stretch, but it does depend on the source. Clearly some are more PR based, but others, such as The New York Times piece, are clearly not. Stock filings and sources of that nature are also not there to establish notability, but simply to present the ticker symbol as is present on other company pages per MOS guidelines, but those do not establish the notability, but rather just add details as presented. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 07:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  Platinum purity is not always denoted that way by the way, on my Mene items, it says 24K just like on the gold items. So they made a deliberate choice to use 24K for both gold and platinum. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 07:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)