Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Hindman Auctioneers


 * 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 (non-administrative closure). The article does show notability, but it is mentioned that there are WP:COI problems with the article. COI itself in an article isn't necessarily a reason to delete an article, and that's the main problem here. There's a COI tag on the article, so someone should eventually cleanup the COI in the article. Besides the COI problem, there's no reason to delete this from looking at the discussion below. -- RyRy  ( talk ) 16:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Leslie Hindman Auctioneers

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

Blatant advertisement, posted by an employee of the company (as admitted on the talk page). Article does nothing but promote the company. References verifying various "facts" about famous clients and such are not present. (Contested speedy; a virtually identical version of this article was speedy-deleted previously.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Skeyelab (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am working on getting together the necessary references. I will have these cited and noted within 1 hour
 * But that doesn't fix your conflict of interest problem. It's still spam. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - major COI problems; no evidence of notability, just bald assertions; no references. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete COI, spam, no assertation of notability that's backed up. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep if rewritten. Sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. "The fifth largest in the country" is an assertion of notability. COI is not a reason for deletion; lack of notability is, but I think notability has been established. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - has it? Looks like bald assertions so far. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily satisfies WP:N and WP:ORG as fifth largest auction house in U.S. If the tone is promotional, edit it. Deletion is not a substitute for editing when there are sources. Check Google Book search, and you see many reliable sources with substantial coverage. Business Review Weekly: BRW (1992) said of Hindman "she runs Leslie Hindman Auctioneers, the hottest auction house in Chicago.""Furniture Hot Spots: The Best Furniture Stores and Websites Coast to Coast" (2005)  has extensive coverage, calling Hindman's the fifth largest auction house in the country and the largest in the midwest. Google News archive  search has many news article with substantial coverage , such as Businessweek(2000)  which has an article about her appraisal service  which talks about her sale to Sotheby's for $20,000,000 in 1997. It was also covered in The Chicago Tribune   and The New York Times  . The Washington Post covered her discovery and sale of a Van Gogh at a then record price for a Chicago art sale . Sotheby's getting out of the Chicaho auction business it had bought from Hindman was covered in 2001  in the Tribune. Auctionbytes (2003) covered the reopening of her Chicago auction operation . Hindman has been a TV show host, has written books on art collecting, and has been acknowledged as an expert. Her business is internationally known. Edison (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You make a good case for an article about Hindman herself, but not the firm. I'm still not convinced on the notability of the firm, spam nothwithstanding. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum to above: Perhaps a good solution to this is to have an article about Hindman herself, with a section about her firm. I think the notability lies more with her than the firm, due in large part to the TV show and Eappraisals.com. But this should be done independently, without being written by people from her company. Comments, anyone? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is substantial press regarding the notability of the firm. Skeyelab (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The old Chicago Tribune references help to a point, but because they are old and only available by subscription, they are of limited usefulness. Items from PRnewswire are not considered reliable sources because they are news releases issued by the company and distributed for a fee. But you still are trying to promote your company! That's not allowed! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:RS in no way discourages "old" print news stories (the firm was only founded 26 years ago: I include lots of 19th century newspaper stories as references in articles I edit, for Pete's sake), or those available only by subscription. They count for every bit as much as some article from last week which is still available online for free. Notability is not temporary. I saw multiple substantial coverage of the firm, not just Hindman. Many references at Google News archive are not press releases. I for one have never worked for the firm. The firm having sufficient notability for an article in no way precludes Hindman from having sufficient notability for an article as well. Edison (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep article needs to be rewritten and improved though. WP:N is satisfied and it is reasonably well sourced as is.  COI Issues abound but if the article is more NPOV I don't see a problem. --Banime (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Adequate sources for notability. The things to do with spammy articles is to remove the spam. I just eliminated a good deal, including considerable duplication. 21:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - the sources establish notability for the firm, and teh issue with conflict of interest will need to be dealt with in editting. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems to be cleaned up pretty well. COI is still present, but peacock and advert writing hase been fixed IMO Geetsromo (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability has been clearly demonstrated by reliable sources. Of course conflict of interest can be a problem, but the solution is not deletion of articles on notable subjects, but for independent editors to watch and edit them to ensure neutrality. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2008 (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.