Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clogau Gold


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Clogau Gold

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Long promotional piece for a small company. Refs are a mix of a commercial site and coverage of announcements in the specialist press. No in-depth coverage in general press, and the article is largely unsourced. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 09:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. There is nothing wrong with specialist press, and it seems to have significant coverage there (in references already listed in the article.) Unfortunately most of the article is pure advertizement and is unsourced. Per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP I think the right thing to do is to simply get rid of all the unsourced material, which would reduce it to a little more than stub size. I said "weak" only because I'm not sure if it would be easier to start the article from scratch. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry I should have linked to this earlier, but could not remember where it was. The relevant policy is WP:AUD, part of the notability requirement for firms, which says "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability" (it's tagged with a disputed tag but the dispute seems to be about making the condition even stricter). It's easy for a firm to get mentioned in specialist (or local) press: especially in the internet age many of them exist to provide complete coverage of all firms in their sector/area, so product launches, announcements, hires, anniversaries are covered like news. Notability therefore requires at least one general publication with regional or national scope to cover the firm.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 18:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That policy is about local press, not specialist press. The vague phrase "media of limited interest and circulation" is not meant to include trade journals, which are accepted as reliable sources provided they have editorial oversight. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But they are media of limited interest and circulation. It's not at all vague but very clear. If a general publication like the NYT writes about a firm it's usually notable. If Retail Jeweller (itself non-notable) writes about it then it doesn't make it notable. It's not about reliability; they can be reliable secondary sources. But notability requires more than just being mentioned by the trade press for retail jewellery.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * AUD was not meant to apply to trade journals, and the poor wording is one of the reasons why it's under discussion. Academic journals are also "media of limited interest and circulation," but the guideline is talking about local newspapers. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete – Self promotional article on the company. References are based on the type of Gold and not the company.  ShoesssS Talk 13:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - the article is a mess of promotion and spam wrapped in disingenuous sourcing. While I agree that WP:AUD wasn't really designed to apply to trade journals, the trade journals in question have issues that extend beyond their general premise. Master Jewellers seems to base most of its content on press releases - none of the articles are attributed to journalists and there doesn't seem to be any sort of editorial oversight mechanism. I'm not even sure that the "articles" are ever published as part of a magazine. Retail Jeweller hires ex-journalists but their role at RJ is actually "working on bespoke projects for individual clients" - ie. promotion/advertising. That's fine, of course, but those don't make for strong sources. The source issues combined with the actual content suggest there's nothing much worth keeping here.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:48, 30 October 2014 (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.