Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1977 Design


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 09:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

1977 Design

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm pretty sure the "clients" section is lying becuase I have been unable to find any reliable secondary sources: 
 * Google web search brings up a couple of sites listing addresses of businesses etc in London, this is not enough to reference an article.
 * Google news searc brings up nothing related to this. Patton t / c 12:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am the owner of this company and a simple view of our website link would confirm that every client entry is entirely correct. What else is required to prove these are clients of ours? I can get contacts from each company to confirm that we are a design supplier.
 * Maybe so but there are no reliable secondary sources required to write a comprehensive article.-- Patton t / c 12:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete I dont think anyone doubts the client list or the existence of your company. The problem is that it does not meet the notability guidelines of wikipedia. It's nothing personal, all articles are held to the same standards.  Also, as the owner of this company, it's not appropriate to be editing the article.  See the COI notice on your talk page for more information.  It's best to work with another edit who is not so closely connected to the company to make any edits.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Article doesn't meet A7 because it has some claim to notability, although no reliable secondary sources can be found.-- Patton t / c 12:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the claim to notability? The client list?  Notability isn't inherited.  This article needs to establish the notability of the company itself.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A company with clients like that can be notable.-- Patton t / c 13:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One would think but sufficent references dont appear to exist. Given the COI issues and lack of references, chances of this article being a reasonable one are slim.  --Rtphokie (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sufficient references don't exist but that's not A7; only articles that have absolutly no assertion of notability ("Jenny lennys is a coffee shop in london") come under it.-- Patton t / c 13:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. Having notable businesses as clients does not confer notability. Also, self-admitted conflict of interest in the creation of this article. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 12:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a speedy candidate (I have removed the tag); the clients list is an assertion of importance, though not evidence of notability.  There is some brief news coverage of this company, but nothing close to the significant, non-local coverage necessary to satisfy WP:CORP.  Baileypalblue (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, the sources are not from a "local coverage source", but rather an apparently notable magazine called Design Week. I agree that the article may have some problems with being written by someone from the company, but if you feel that it is bias or ad-like, then go ahead and fix it, it's no reason for deletion. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 15:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * DeleteThe citations there don't indicate notability, the firm is mentioned mostly in passing, particularly in the Wembley stadium one. Searching around for other sources of notability is proving unfruitful for me.  The article may not qualify for speedy deletion as advertising, but the firm is not notable.  Not every thing which is mentioned in a newspaper or magazine is inherently notable, and this seems to be clearly a company just trying to promote itself, and not something which belongs in an encyclopedia. Huadpe (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not really a speedy candidate, but like Baileypalblue said, there's just not enough coverage to build an article around. The article sounds like it was copied straight from a brochure, which doesn't help. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The Design Week references seem to be just mentions, not articles about the firm. . DGG (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CORP and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Matt (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2009 (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.