Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Collectors


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 23:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Independent Collectors

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account for the purpose of promoting Independent Collector. Has a few links but they seem to be trivial coverage or mentions.. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. Hu12 (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I cleared the article of the worst of the promotional prose and I'll see what sources I can find.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I forward this,the advertising was removed so lets wait for this user to find sources.74.178.177.227 (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Despite the considerable effort that Tokyogirl79 has put into cleaning the article up, it is still substantially promotional, and although there is a significant number of sources, most either give only brief mention of the subject, or else are clearly promotional or otherwise not independent sources. One doesn't mention it at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * One doesn't mention it at all: If you are referring to this, check the second page, there is some pretty substantial coverage. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a brief mention amounting to six sentences, two of which are a quote from someone from "Independent Collectors" and the statement that it is a quote from her. I find "pretty substantial coverage" a surprising description of that. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I was initially uncertain here, on the basis that while some of the references are from self-promotional websites, and one does not mention Independent Collectors, some do appear do be from reputable third party sources. But the basically promotional nature of the article is blatant.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't the "promotional nature of the article" a content issue which can be fixed by normal editing? --Cerebellum (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I am the original author of the article. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I am a tad confused as the article was only approved yesterday and now already up for deletion. I am attempting to add more references and to keep my tone as neutral as possible.Inge_1985 (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm the one who approved this article at AfC. There are actually a fair number of solid sources for this, but most of them aren't in English - see, , , , ,  and .  --Cerebellum (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The one at Zeit Online is the one mentioned above, where, as I said, there are just a few sentences, in the course of an article not substantially about "Independent Collectors". The one from El Pais likewise has just a brief mention of "Independent Collectors" in a long article. I am not 100% confident of the independence of some of the others: for example, "International Business Times" looks to me very much like one of the many business promotion sites that publish write-ups on behalf of clients, though I admit it is difficult to be sure. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See International Business Times. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. A quick note, the article above from www.vanguardia.com.mx is a reproduction of this article from El País. To add to these sources (which already hint heavily at notability) there's also a few dedicated articles , one with significant coverage even though the focus is not the subject , one passing mention , and two interviews  . While we're at it, it seems that their art guide is notable as well     — Frankie (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Initial entry was promotional, however the second revision by Tokyogirl79 seems to strip it down far too much, taking away essential information that could otherwise have been useful if changed into a non-promotional format. Notability has been sufficiently provided using sources in German, Spanish, Italian and English with sufficient merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sth0nianHo (talk • contribs) 11:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the only edit made by Sth0nianHo. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * delete I agree with JamesBWatson. --Shorthate (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:58, 30 November 2012 (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.