Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dowden Health Media


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Dowden Health Media

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

NN org. Only primary sources. No doubt that it exists, but no evidence of 3rd party in-depth coverage MrCleanOut (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Dowden publishes notable academic journals. --Crusio (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid argument, per WP:NOTINHERITED, where is the independent coverage? MrCleanOut (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If you click on the "find sources" link above (something you usually do before going to AfD), you find within 30 sec: and  in the first 5 results. If you click on "news", you'll find even more stuff. --Crusio (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To the article creator: Your links appear to be extended business directory listings, info that is copied more or less uncritically from company documents, or superficial info on an acquisition. Searching more, this  comes up, but it's basically a press release, full of puff.  Where is the independent significant coverage that's required for a stand-alone article?  The article contents could merged to some target, not necessarily having its own article. MrCleanOut (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The first link most certainly is not a business directory but a newspaper article. This doesn't seem to be "just a press release" either. btobonline.com has multiple articles on Dowden. And this is just the first page of the results of a "news" search. There's more, of course. --Crusio (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  08:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep: Per Crusio. -Ret.Prof (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2010 (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.