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. RL0919 (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CbdMD.com[edit]

CbdMD.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:NCORP fail, largely based on press releases. 3 citations of businesswire.com and promoted content from entrepreneur.com Vexations (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Native advertising. scope_creep^Talk 13:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all information is well sourced, and nothing promotional is here, no advertising is contributed, if there is advertisements it can be removed why delete? Company is large abd first from America in field of CBD Vixhere (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• review of the sources:

• • [1] is a routine announcement in a trade magazine
  • [2] is a primary source
  • [3] is a press release
  • [4] is a simple listing
  • [5]is a press release
  • [6] is routine reporting on revenue with a quote from the subject
  • [7] is a press release
  • https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cannabis/19/05/13663622/how-this-cbd-company-is-tackling-a-new-market-its-important-to-be-first Quote:"everything we do is around branding". Duh, and this (paid) article is part of that effort.
  • [8] interview with its CEO.
  • [9] is an e-store
  • [10] is the subject about itself
  • [11] is a press release
  • [12] is a press release
  • https://www.marijuanabreak.com/cbd/cbdmd-review I don't know if this is considered a reliable source, but who spells "contributor" as "contributer" [13] and can claim that they have some sort of editorial control and do fact checking?
  • [14] is an e-store
  • [15] is sponsored content
  • https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/golf-bubba-watson-cbd-pot-pga This article actually makes a claim to notability: "CbdMD is making history as the first CBD company to list on a U.S. stock exchange." The article is mostly about the golfer though, and has very little information on the comapany, and no analysis
  • https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20181204005269/en/Level-Brands-Signs-Definitive-Merger-Agreement-Acquire] is a press release
  • https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikedojc/2019/05/02/bubba-watson-is-the-latest-golfer-to-hop-on-the-cbd-bandwagon/ this is one of those typical Forbes contributor articles, not a reliaBle source Vexations (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: although promotionalism can be addressed by editing. This is a paid piece, the creator should abide by WP:PAID. His/her creations should go to WP:AFC first per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Conflict_of_interest_guideline Ceethekreator (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand this and I accept this article in under paid contributions but that I've disclosed! And it is not promotional I know difference between promotional/advertising I've only wrote which can be proved. And All sources are available in the google, nothing is sent directly by Employer, comment on reviews; all references sounds like press release or promotional because it's a company they have to release their updates to the media, its about that. And about should go through afc, I do understand the afc submission for paid; main thing about paid is needs to be disclosure and I've made sure about this passes WP:ORG anyways if u dont think this should be on wikipedia I've no problem it's not my own company to feel sad about but I'll loose my article, thats why I'm defending this article! I've not been paid I just know the owners they asked me if u can write so I did Vixhere (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Vixhere, the problem is with the quality of the sources. Please read the article WP:NCORP and let us know which independent, reliable sources provide significant coverage as required by our notability guideline for organizations and companies. Vexations (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vexations: I just read the WP:NCORP it doesn't passes Independent reliable sources but all cited articles are on google ins't that enough? as the media publications are quiet known. but as you have nominated this article I would respect whatever decision will be made cheers Vixhere (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Vixhere, No, it is not enough that they "are on google". Have you made an effort to understand our notability criteria? The examples in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), I think, are very clear. The section Examples of dependent coverage lists examples that apply to nearly all sources you have used and even list entrepreneur.com as an example. How you expect to have this article moved to draft and then re-posted in a few months is really beyond me. Practically none of the sources you based it on should be used again. I would caution against attempting to re-create the article any time soon, and suggest that it should be written as a summary of what independent, reliable sources have to say, rather than what the company wants to see. Vexations (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As "the first CBD company to list on a U.S. stock exchange", maybe over time there will be significant independent coverage of the company, but at present, it fails the primary criteria. Schazjmd (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Another Delete comment and I'll ((Db-self)) it not liking getting my article deleted, I searcheda lot and worked on this before publishing it, it's not I'm promoting anything I completly understand what Wikipedia is but I'm really sorry if this is nonsense or trash :( Vixhere (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Vixhere, I know it's frustrating when you've worked hard on something. Articles get deleted all the time and it isn't personal. If the company ever gets more coverage (in independent, reliable sources), you can try again. Schazjmd (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I know it will be deleted to deletion performer don't delete move it to the draft space I'll move back here in few months later when subject has independently reliable source Vixhere (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Dont support moving to draft and wasting everybody's time. It will come back with same content, 5 months up the road. scope_creep^Talk 21:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I wish I had seen that Vexations had already posted that comprehensive source analysis before doing it myself. If it's moved to draft it should have to go back through AfC given the paid editing acknowledged in this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I just googled about the company, stocks aren't doing well at NYSE, but the company itself is at large scale as it's backed up by Other large company, sources aren't much Independent but they are verifiable, Title should be changed to cbdMD or cbdMD (company) and yes should have gone through AFC as it's paid contribution. company is in the news so I think it can be recreated after several months. the draft won't work as I don't think within 6 months this should be moved or recreated. --Siddharth 📨 10:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as paid-for spam. I have blocked the creator for being WP:NOTHERE and failing to disclose more paid contributions. MER-C 11:52, 1 June 2019 (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.