399:
I can't argue with the
Chicago ones on these grounds I suppose. But the first one we know nothing about (can't read it without paying). Second one: It's not really about duPont or their competitor Robb, but about the rich and their spending habits. The publications and their publishers are used as examples and quotation sources. But does an article that seemingly chose two random "cater to the rich" businesses, but the focus of which is whether such businesses are really viable in a depressed economy, genuinely demonstrate notability? It seems rather incidental to me, and flash-in-the-pan. Will people still write articles about duPont and his company in 5 years? Were they writing them 5 years ago? Third Chicago item is the same kind of piece.
457:
that a lot of the news results are pay-per-view should count against them - you can often determine that they provide significant coverage without seeing the entire article. Please look at all of the Google News coverage yourself (about 1,650 results)- I doubt that a subject with that much coverage can be considered insufficiently notable for an article here. Google Books shows coverage in Forbes, and also other coverage such as
373:). As for it being "re-creation of previously deleted material", if the same content had been previously deleted at AFD this would be a reason for deletion, but it was previously speedy-deleted as "unambiguous advertising or promotion", but I see little more than the basic facts about the subject in the current version. The article can be improved with readily available sources, and should be improved rather than deleted.--
347:
343:
335:
355:
411:
is a direct marketing industry insider publication, so its notability-establishing power is extremely low, both for lack of independence from their subjects and lack of distribution to the general public (if I were really good at building model rockets and got written up in a model rocketry magazine,
508:
it, since no one has paid to get access to it and see if it helps establish notability. You have the argument backward. Local publications are often suspect as sources for notability claims because of neutrality/independence problems (such as the promotional wording I mentioned) and because of scale
456:
I don't see why coverage in local newspapers, some of which are quite large local newspapers, and not local to the subject, should be discounted. Somehow I doubt that the
Frontier Restaurant has received much coverage from newspapers on the other side of the States. I also see no reason why the fact
398:
in
Albuquerque has had loads of non-trivial articles written about it locally, including full-color photos, and lots of positive prose. Note the redlink, which should stay that way until someone outside of the hometown crowd decides the business is noteworthy enough to significantly publish about.
416:
material written about them, like whether their and their competitors' sort of business model is doomed, whether their website has separate pages that look kind of like the magazines', or whether a notable athlete (the non-trivial part of the story, arguably) posed on one of their covers (all of
200:
was turned down on the basis that a cited source did allege notability (not sure I agree with that sort of rationale, since the assertion wasn't in the article, but the point is moot, as a third editor removed this source as non-independent, based on company's own press release). Presently the
607:: Please actually examine the sources closely, then. One isn't even a real news source but a website that simply reguritates press releases, and many of the rest are local publications writing gushy puff-pieces that are not necessarily independent enough of the subject to be taken seriously. —
509:- what is "notable" on a local level is usually utterly insignificant on a larger scale. Also, I didn't even say that "a lot of" the news results are pay-per-view, I said one of them is. I feel you have not actually read and absorbed but simply skimmed what I wrote. Please try again. —
692:, there are plenty of sources. For example, it looks like a bunch of newspaper editors all decided to assign reporters to find out how duPont Registry and its customers were doing in the current economic downturn.
162:
264:
in other articles referring to the company the article is about, upload images related to the company, and create another now-deleted article for another non-notable publication that the editor is probably also
588:. As indicated above, sources about this publisher/magazine chain do exist. I will try to improve the article with sources during the AfD period unless someone else gets around to doing so before me. --
458:
117:
412:
that would not make me
Knowledge (XXG) notable). And so on. The case I'm making is that the company is faintly "interesting" - they are "unusual", even "strange" - and thus get
156:
351:
394:: Most of the coverage appears to be by local newspapers, and the gushing articles don't seem like real journalism in some cases, but promotional pieces.
122:
231:
371:
269:, as seems to be the case here. Also, this article is itself re-creation of previously deleted material. This version of the article was de-
90:
85:
94:
17:
670:
623:
525:
441:
315:
225:
77:
574:
330:, Re. "nothing has been done by any editor to establish notability with multiple instances of non-trivial coverage", following
177:
144:
722:
339:
36:
367:
570:
138:
721:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
642:
592:
249:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
370:. Needless to say, there's a lot more coverage beyond that. Similarly, Google Books shows plenty of coverage (
334:
could have dealt with that. The first 2 pages of results from the Google News
Archives throw up all of these:
707:
676:
645:
629:
595:
578:
549:
531:
499:
474:
447:
382:
321:
134:
59:
545:
495:
299:, and neither does the fact that some of the listed properties, yachts, etc. may themselves be notable. —
237:
57:
664:
617:
519:
479:
435:
309:
504:
I didn't say a pay-per-view source "counts against" the article's notability; I said it does not count
184:
219:
81:
461:, amongst others. This doesn't need a profile in Forbes or WSJ to be notable, it simply has to pass
702:
639:
589:
395:
363:
170:
331:
280:
541:
491:
50:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
206:
193:
150:
658:
638:
I'm referring to sources I have found on my own, in addition to the ones found by Michig. --
611:
513:
470:
429:
378:
303:
540:
profile? You implied above that you would accept such a profile as evidence of notability.
462:
266:
210:
197:
214:
73:
65:
288:
261:
417:
these are actual stories you linked to above), and local coverage. Show me a profile in
196:
that produces a few for-sale magazines. Article doesn't even assert notability, really.
694:
284:
202:
273:
111:
466:
374:
404:
359:
405:
whose business model is writing stories, for pay, based on your press release
295:(they target only the ultra-wealthy) does not make them or the publisher
260:, that has done nothing but create this article and add closely related
715:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
287:
with multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in independent
255:
243:
107:
103:
99:
169:
281:
the company turns up a fair number of times in Google
279:
ed, after the speedy was rejected, on the basis that
183:
403:isn't a reliable publication, but a news-ish blog
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
725:). No further edits should be made to this page.
283:. But nothing has been done by any editor to
8:
209:, and was created by what appears to be a
205:at all, seems to serve no purpose than to
291:. PS: The fact that the publications are
465:, which it does more than adequately.--
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
569:per users Michig and Bridger.
194:Non-notable publishing company
1:
207:promote the company's website
708:01:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
677:02:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
646:02:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
630:01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
596:06:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
579:16:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
550:22:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
532:01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
500:13:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
475:12:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
448:11:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
383:10:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
322:09:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
60:02:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
742:
718:Please do not modify it.
267:directly associated with
32:Please do not modify it.
480:"Show me a profile in
211:single-purpose account
571:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
285:establish notability
536:And what about the
396:Frontier Restaurant
654:Keen-o. Thanks. —
44:The result was
674:
627:
529:
445:
360:Chicago Sun Times
319:
201:would-be article
733:
720:
706:
699:
675:
669:
668:
628:
622:
621:
530:
524:
523:
446:
440:
439:
348:Orlando Sentinel
344:Orlando Sentinel
320:
314:
313:
289:reliable sources
278:
272:
259:
232:deleted contribs
203:cites no sources
188:
187:
173:
125:
115:
97:
53:
34:
741:
740:
736:
735:
734:
732:
731:
730:
729:
723:deletion review
716:
695:
693:
663:
661:
655:
616:
614:
608:
518:
516:
510:
434:
432:
426:
340:Chicago Tribune
336:Chicago Tribune
308:
306:
300:
276:
270:
217:
198:Speedy deletion
130:
121:
88:
74:DuPont Registry
72:
69:
66:DuPont Registry
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
739:
737:
728:
727:
711:
710:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
657:
649:
648:
640:Metropolitan90
633:
632:
610:
599:
598:
590:Metropolitan90
583:
582:
581:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
512:
477:
451:
450:
428:
401:TransWorldNews
386:
385:
364:TransWorldNews
352:Herald-Journal
302:
191:
190:
127:
123:AfD statistics
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
738:
726:
724:
719:
713:
712:
709:
704:
700:
698:
691:
688:
687:
678:
672:
666:
662:
660:
653:
652:
651:
650:
647:
644:
641:
637:
636:
635:
634:
631:
625:
619:
615:
613:
606:
603:
602:
601:
600:
597:
594:
591:
587:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
565:
564:
563:
562:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
534:
533:
527:
521:
517:
515:
507:
503:
502:
501:
497:
493:
489:
487:
483:
478:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
455:
454:
453:
452:
449:
443:
437:
433:
431:
424:
420:
415:
410:
406:
402:
397:
393:
390:
389:
388:
387:
384:
380:
376:
372:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
326:
325:
324:
323:
317:
311:
307:
305:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
275:
268:
263:
257:
254:
251:
248:
245:
242:
239:
236:
233:
230:
227:
224:
221:
216:
212:
208:
204:
199:
195:
186:
182:
179:
176:
172:
168:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
136:
133:
132:Find sources:
128:
124:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
717:
714:
696:
689:
656:
609:
604:
585:
566:
542:Phil Bridger
537:
511:
505:
492:Phil Bridger
485:
481:
427:
422:
418:
413:
408:
400:
391:
356:Miami Herald
327:
301:
296:
292:
252:
246:
240:
234:
228:
222:
192:
180:
174:
166:
159:
153:
147:
141:
131:
52:Juliancolton
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
659:SMcCandlish
612:SMcCandlish
514:SMcCandlish
430:SMcCandlish
304:SMcCandlish
157:free images
262:spam links
250:block user
244:filter log
215:Spilchards
703:reasoning
697:Abductive
332:WP:BEFORE
256:block log
671:Contribs
624:Contribs
526:Contribs
442:Contribs
316:Contribs
226:contribs
118:View log
605:Comment
414:trivial
392:Comment
368:DM News
297:notable
293:unusual
163:WP refs
151:scholar
91:protect
86:history
643:(talk)
593:(talk)
482:Forbes
467:Michig
463:WP:GNG
419:Forbes
409:DMNews
375:Michig
135:Google
95:delete
667:ʕ(ل)ˀ
665:Talk⇒
620:ʕ(ل)ˀ
618:Talk⇒
522:ʕ(ل)ˀ
520:Talk⇒
438:ʕ(ل)ˀ
436:Talk⇒
312:ʕ(ل)ˀ
310:Talk⇒
178:JSTOR
139:books
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
690:Keep
586:Keep
575:talk
567:Keep
546:talk
496:talk
471:talk
459:this
425:. —
379:talk
328:Keep
274:prod
238:logs
220:talk
171:FENS
145:news
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
46:keep
538:WSJ
506:for
486:WSJ
484:or
423:WSJ
421:or
185:TWL
120:•
116:– (
48:. –
577:)
548:)
498:)
490:.
473:)
407:.
381:)
366:,
362:,
358:,
354:,
350:,
346:,
342:,
338:,
277:}}
271:{{
213:,
165:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
56:|
705:)
701:(
673:.
626:.
573:(
544:(
528:.
494:(
488:"
469:(
444:.
377:(
318:.
258:)
253:·
247:·
241:·
235:·
229:·
223:·
218:(
189:)
181:·
175:·
167:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
137:(
129:(
126:)
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.