Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jigsaw ESL

: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. J04n(talk page) 20:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

=[[Jigsaw ESL]]=

:{{la|Jigsaw ESL}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jigsaw_ESL Stats])

:({{Find sources|Jigsaw ESL}})

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Jigsaw ESL has not been the subject of sustained, in-depth coverage from any independent sources. There have been perhaps 3 news articles where the company's name is mentioned in passing.[http://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/chester-news/local-chester-news/2008/10/23/chester-based-tv-soap-launches-official-fragrances-59067-22100796/][http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/celebrity/160359/celebrity-perfume-sales-soaring.html][http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/scent-of-a-famous-woman-celebrity-perfume-on-rise-462827.html]. These are stories about celebrity-branded perfumes, where Jigsaw is only mentioned as an example of such a marketer. See WP:CORPDEPTH. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

:: The article has 8+ sources of evidence and notable coverage, not 3. It has since been edited further with more applicable sources such as their notability on niche specialist forums.

[http://www.basenotes.net/content/1201-Jigsaw-ESL-acquire-rights-to-Blas%C3%A9-Head-over-Heels-Mandate-Insignia-and-more][http://www.basenotes.net/industry_news/20090616-jigsawels.html] [http://www.basenotes.net/industry_news/20090616-jigsawels.html] [http://www.basenotes.net/industry_news/20090616-jigsawels.html] [http://www.fragrantica.com/news/Ministry-of-Sound-Nightlife-Where-are-you-going-tonight--377.html] This may suit your standards more appropriately as the articles are not 'passing' their name. Let me know? Rosiehannah (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

keep Never heard of them. However if they're the "invisible brand" behind the 'sleb-branded products like Jade Goody and Katie Price's fragrances (which are clearly notable under those names), then we should cover them. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like notability by association, or inherited notability. Not every enterprise a celebrity touches is automatically notable. The whole point, of course, is that the product is supposed to be as famous as the celebrity, but that doesn't always happen. If being the brand behind celebrity perfumes is notable, then why don't reliable sources take notice write about it? And if we keep the article, where are the independent sources we need to cite the content? Currently it's filled with primary sources and self-published sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

::: No, the manufacturer of such fine fragrances as l'eau de Goody is clearly notable as the maker of significant and popular products, much the same as any other perfumier with that kind of volume sales. The fact I didn't know they were called "Jigsaw", and that they don't print this on the bottles, doesn't change this. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

::::That's completely plausible. But again, if they ship a notable volume of perfume, where are the independent sources taking note of it? You're saying "It's notable because it's notable" instead of saying "It's notable because independent sources x, y, and z" wrote about it. Articles about Jade Goody or her perfume don't confer notability on things associated with the perfume, the marketer, importer, manufacturer, bottle maker, etc. The subject of the article itself, Jigsaw ESL, must be the focus of a minimum of indepenent sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

::::: It's notable because of sources w[http://fragrancefoundation.org.uk/membership/members/#.URzDwx00yJ9], x[https://www.shesaidbeauty.com/product/amy_childs/fragrance_by_jigsaw_esl], y[http://www.basenotes.net/industry_news/20090616-jigsawels.html] and z[http://www.basenotes.net/content/1201-Jigsaw-ESL-acquire-rights-to-Blas%C3%A9-Head-over-Heels-Mandate-Insignia-and-more]. Your point is quite discombobulating; This is meant to be an encyclopedia where people learn and check facts. If not a lot of people know Jigsaw ESL is key marketer and manufacturer of international perfume then this is where Wikipedia shows its power and confirms new information and facts. It is an incredibly necessary page. Rosiehannah (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

keep - They are a key part in celebrity branded products - why wouldn't you cover them? Rosiehannah (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete - The links provided to not spawn notability, they are inside key, reference or technical notes regarding acquisition or changes in the company.Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete. 168.94.245.2 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete per above. Foac (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Foac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

:*Blocked as sock. CtP (t • c) 23:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

:::Is this just going to keep being re-listed until you decide it gets deleted? Please can someone either help me to improve it or remove the deletion box from the top? Thank you kindly. Rosiehannah (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

::::I'm sorry, but just because a company exists doesn't mean it meets the WP notability guidelines; please see WP:NCORP. The issue here seems to be the independence of the sources; "industry" sources generally have a symbiotic relationship with their subjects. All the best, Miniapolis 20:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete - the references on the page are terrible and don't meet our standards and do not establish it's notability. Independent research does not seem to net much results either. Contrary to other posters beliefs, just because they are the distributor for a popular product doesn't make this product generally notable. Winning an award from only one agency also is not sufficient and there is no general coverage of this company suggesting that it is significant in any way. This article seems to be nothing more than just a list of clients/products and doesn't establish anything about the company itself. Overall it seems like spam, and many of the references are spam, blog or other sites which fail as reliable sources. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; no independent, secondary RS. Miniapolis 20:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

: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.