Deletion of Sweat Cosmetics

Comment: per DGG and  fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: Disagree. It's a notable business started by notable women athletes. Article meets  criteria. If there are "promotional" concerns, they should be specifically indicated so that the article can be improved, not deleted per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ATD)

Comment: Fails  by a mile. Paid advertorials and interviews do not show that the company is notable. Let's have a look at the sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: passing GNG is a presumption of an article not a guarantee. We can delete  promo/advert if we want. I don't have an answer, but a question..do all the editors here want to be having to scrupulously double check these promo sources at AfDs for this and other promos? (plug for my longer analysis at 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:BOGOF)

Comment: sounds like we should be conscious of the  that might exist in this afd, keeping in mind that WP community is Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#Women_are_underrepresented|mostly men
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS)

Comment: There's no way, if  was met, that ''13 sources'' should effectively get us "they make cosmetics," but that's really what we have.  There's obvious COATRACKing - ''Her Campus'', with a profile on a founder, and all that comes out of it is that the products are hypoallergenic?  Clearly the source wasn't about the product, then, was it?  Several of the other references are "X number of X"-type articles, and those are never any good as sources.  The fact that it's sold at Sephora?  So is a lot of other stuff.  Some famous people started it?  . I'm not seeing anything that tells me this is anything other than ordinary.  The coverage is pretty typical product launch coverage because a famous person is involved, and said coverage is over a span of only two months, and ''at best'' it's , and I'm not so sure it's got coverage outside of the news cycle.  This is an SPA-created article on a company that simply doesn't meet notability guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: per {{u|DGG}}, right about this as about several others of its kind. Appears to be yet more undisclosed paid advocacy, should be deleted on sight per  (speedy criterion G11). Overtly promotional tone, promotional intent – it's an advertisement, and we don't allow advertisement. If the company is notable (and I'm far from convinced that it is), then the page can be re-created by a non-connected editor – but there's no  for that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSOAP||WP:DEADLINE)