Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogeared


 * 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. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 01:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Dogeared

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

Total and utter spam. Looks like a company brochure. Includes pictures of products, "best known product lines", and vague statements such as "Dogeared Jewels have graced the necks of the world’s most gorgeous ladies." Dmol (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete-Agree with Dmol ttonyb1 (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:SPAM CopaceticThought (talk) 05:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It is really sad to see that an admin turned down a SD request. This article meets G11 of the CSD, but oh well. Besides from it actually meeting SD criteria, the article is based on self-published sources, published by the subject. WP:RS clearly states that even though self-published information by the subject can be used as a source, the article shouldn't depend on it, which is the case here. Did I mention that it meets G11 of CSD?--Legion fi (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand why an administrator would consider it borderline. Remember that to satisfy that criterion not only must the text be advertising, but also it must be blatant and require a fundamental rewrite in order to become anything else.  I can understand the position of an administrator who, looking at this particular article, would opine that the rewrite wouldn't be fundamental.  There are some peacock terms to subtract, and some wholly unsourced sections to excise.  But one might not have to start again from scratch when fixing this. The important issue thus becomes whether one can fix this, and that is a matter of the existence of independent in-depth reliable sources, for which AFD is the place.  Making such a determination safely involves having more than one pair of eyes look for sources.  It is not safe to leave it to speedy deletion.  Unfortunately, neither Ttonyb1 nor CopaceticThought have helped Wikipedia at all in that regard. You're the only one in this discussion to look at sources, and even you have only looked at the sources cited in the article.  You haven't looked at what sources exist and are available.  You can help Wikipedia a lot more, in this AFD discussion and in all other AFD discussions, by doing that.  Look for sources on each subject yourself, and report what you do and don't find, and we'll have a firmer foundation for saying, at the close of the discussion and later, that we have solid reasons for believing that the process has reached the right conclusions, in accordance with Deletion policy. And the same goes for Ttonyb1 nor CopaceticThought, whom I encourage to make much better contributions to AFD discussions, with the legwork put in.  Uncle G (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment-I agree with Uncle G about the borderline nature of the article and the need to review sources; however, I reviewed the sources twice, once prior to someone making with the SD tag and again before adding my 2 cents in the AfD and both times found them to be insufficient to support an adequate rewrite. If someone wants to state that I should have discussed this lack of support in the AfD, fine, but please do not assume I provide opinions without doing the necessary legwork.  Thanks…  ttonyb1 (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking for sources, I cannot find any. There are no books or scholarly articles that even mention the subject.  Newspaper article coverage is limited to two directories of jewellers where one can buy jewellery, with no in-depth coverage of an description.  And there's nothing on the WWW except advertising, press releases, MySpace sites, and other publications that all originate with the company itself &mdash; the same sorts of things that the article itself currently cites.  There's nothing independent to be found at all, it seems.  It's all autobiography and advertising, neither of which is trustworthy.  The PNC is not satisfied.  Delete. Uncle G (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: did you see the briefing that was in National Jeweler magazine a couple of weeks ago? I personally doubt it, but this store could be the next big thing in California as the recession hits. Ottre 11:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Despite Uncle G's recriminations, I note he too fails to provide alternate sourcing; article WOULD require a ground up rewrite even if sources were found, and it reads as a massive SPAM violation currently. No saving this mess. ThuranX (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Regardless of profitability/niche marketing, no evidence of notability outside of California. Ottre 16:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - seems like a promotional article with no real encyclopedic substance. Would need a significant rewrite even assuming the subject is notable. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is nothing notable about this small company, and there is no significant coverage other than self-promotional sources. If the article is to be kept, it needs to be totally rewritten, as the tone of the article in its current form is thoroughly inappropriate. It should have been speedied under G11.  Horologium  (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - pure spam, and a likely recreation of Dogeared Jewels & Gifts, already deleted under G11 three times - in one day! TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:53, 27 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.