Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keno Auctions


 * 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) 03:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Keno Auctions

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Newly-founded auction company that will not hold its first auction until May 2010. Nonnotable despite the single short NYTimes article discussing the company's founder. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some references. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  - Eastmain (talk • contribs)  04:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for now, without prejudice toward re-creation if the company becomes notable later, as I suspect it might. For now, the company does not inherit notability from its founder, but it does seem to be headed in a direction that would likely lead to notability later on. (Note: I marked this for speedy before more refs are provided; however, I still favor deletion at this time.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It has already achieved international coverage, which sees it as a significant project. It is obviously going to continue to get coverage, as soon as auctions start. At the very least it should be merged with and redirected to Leigh and Leslie Keno, where it is mentioned. There is no justification whatsoever for plain deletion. Well done on the refs, Eastmain!  Ty  13:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. –  Ty  13:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There are a number of refs, and google hits, seems bona-fide...Modernist (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Refs are good, but being bona fide is not necessarily mean being notable. I'd favor merging with the founders' article for now. Again, it's hard to for an auction company to be notable when it has not conducted its first auction yet. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Refs are good" = notability. There are often wikipedia articles on subjects which achieve notability in advance of their happening, e.g. films, albums, not to mention 2012 Summer Olympics. I take it your delete is now a merge.  Ty  22:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, don't put words in my mouth, I still think delete is in order for now, though a brief mention in the founders' article(s) would be OK. Your analogy to the Olympics is specious. The Olympics are automatically notable. Auction houses which have not yet done any business are not automatically notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not putting words in your mouth. You said, "I'd favor merging with the founders' article for now." Now you've said it again: "a brief mention in the founders' article(s) would be OK." If you think the material should be deleted, then you're saying it has no place in wikipedia. If you think it should be in another article instead, this is technically "merge" and this article should be redirected to the other one, where the material can be found. You can't delete the material and also put it elsewhere (if only for GFDL/CC integrity). The mention of the Olympics is valid to show that matters which have not yet taken place can still be notable, and, as I mentioned, this often happens with e.g. films/albums etc, so there is no intrinsic reason why it cannot happen with an auction house, which has already generated coverage.  Ty  14:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll vote the way I please, and I thank you not to try to twist my words to suit your tastes. Since you seem to be intent on this, I will state it more clearly: Delete. The subject is not notable because it has yet to transact any significant business. It may be notable in the future, but at this point it is not Because of your actions, I no longer favor any sort of merge whatsoever. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Calm down. I'm just pointing out the contradiction between putting the info in another article and deleting this one. This is a discussion, not a vote. A decision based on someone else's actions, rather than an objective evaluation, does not carry much weight.  Ty  15:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If they have indeed contracted with the owners to sell items already, that constitutes trading, even if the auction is later. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sources establish notability, even though the company hasn't yet conducted its first auction.  ReverendWayne (talk) 19:47, 5 February 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.