Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspen Dental


 * 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   keep. henrik • talk  11:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Aspen Dental

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, borderline WP:SPAM, no significant coverage online in WP:RS. MuffledThud (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —MuffledThud (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Did you even look for sources? Admittedly, most are PR newswire sources, but I think enough are legit. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes most GNEWS hits were press releases, so not reliable per WP:RS. The remainder that you quote appear to be local press coverage, which as far as I'm aware is not an indication of company notability per WP:COMPANY: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Please correct me if I've misunderstood this. This one that you mention above doesn't actually mention Aspen Dental: maybe you meant to paste a different link?  Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It mentioned it in the preview. Maybe Google choked on the link. Anyway, I've got a hard time believing that all of the hits on Google News are trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the 263 GNEWS summaries excerpts, nearly every single one is either a press release or a local paper saying "Aspen Dental is opening an office here in town". The few exceptions only mention the company in passing: "crime committed across the street from Aspen Dental", "...before that she was a manager of Aspen Dental", etc. If you can find 2 or 3 substantial articles from WP:RS that are actually about the company, I'll retract the nomination.  I've been wrong about WP:Notability before. :-) MuffledThud (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep A dentistry business with 200 franchises is probably notable, but this needs a rewrite. At first I thought it was the product of some corporate drudge, but there are similarly spammy articles from an editor who specializes in "Business Bios"  .  Call the hygienist, this one needs a cleanup.  Mandsford (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I will go in and make edits adding non-Pr newswire sources. The intent is not to market or create bad articles. The frustrating part is that 90% of the articles published (and not flagged) about businesses are way more advertorial in nature than this one in particular. Your help in walking the line between a company bio and an advertisement is appreciated. BusinessBios

Content trimmed and reworked. All but one PR Web source is replaced. New sources showcase ligitimacy of Aspen Dental overall. Still working to learn. BusinessBios 09:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BusinessBios (talk • contribs)
 * 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.