Deletion of Completely Bare

Comment: Checking the references, one can see that 3 of the 5 given sources are invalid: the ''Yelp'' and ''Cosmopolitan'' links are user-submitted blog posts, and the CompletelyBare website is obviously self-referential. That leaves the ''Vogue'' and ''Allure'' links: would these not qualify under the given rules of ? They are "independent, verifiable coverage in secondary sources"... but does that mask the plain fact that they themselves are puffery? This kind of logrolling is used over and over to justify keeping articles which are blatant , while far worthier articles are condemned to deletion because they lack such "citations". I don't want to vote Keep here, but I'm not clear how to refute those two links. Should someone do so, I would be grateful and pleased, but the reason I post this comment now is to ask for the community's help in researching the larger issue of "sourcing". Reading through the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard archives, I see several instances of ''Allure'', ''Vogue'' and even ''Teen Vogue'' being discussed as though they were authoritative. Are they? It is difficult to judge purely from reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources: it says "Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable". To my eye, magazines such as these contain a huge amount of unjournalistic writing, and their "coverage" frequently cannot qualify as "source material" even in a subject such as bodywaxing businesses.  Can some nice editor give a wikilink to where this issue has been explained/discussed in depth? Thanks in advance
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:COMPANY||WP:PROMO)

Comment: wax, wash, repeat. Article fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)