Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Outdoor Living


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Australian Outdoor Living

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non-notable per WP:CORP, unable to find reliable references Deunanknute (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article has some references--why do you think them unreliable? and where have you looked further?  DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The references are:
 * 1. Company's website
 * 2. small article in local paper
 * 3. Paid Advertisement
 * 4. article on pool demand
 * 5. article on yardwork
 * 6. nomination, no other info
 * 7. Paid Advertisement
 * 2, 4, and 5 may, or may not, be direct advertisements, but they come from sources that do carry significant advertisement for the company.
 * None of these reliably establishes notability, and I did not find other sources that did. Deunanknute (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. blow it away.
 * Looking at the sources Deunanknute may be wrong about 7 but is otherwise on the money. 3 states that it is an "advertising feature" at the top of the page. 2, 4, 5 and 7 read like press releases, I question whether they can be considered independent. Sources 2,3,4,5,7 can be found on their media page of their website.
 * This page is an advert. It's written in the preferred copy then sources are found that are partly relate but do not actually verify the claims made. Such deceptive sourcing shows the intent to promote.
 * Deceptively sourced advertisements should have no place on Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * delete as above, deceptive use of sources to masquerade an advert as an article. LibStar (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Object to a paper with over a 1/2 million subscribers all over southern Australia being described as a "local paper". It is totally beside the point how the sources were found for the article, as long as they are RS. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * the majority of the sources are not reliable as they are not independent of the subject eg advertising feature. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2015 (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.