Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noonans Mayfair


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Noonans Mayfair

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NCORP, lack of in-depth coverage in RS. The articles reads like a business directory entry, listing some basic information. Nothing in the article indicates anything notable, and searching finds little more. MB 23:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and England. MB 23:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment as article creator. I just created this article today and the nominator seems a bit trigger-happy. It doesn't look like WP:BEFORE has been done since the company just changed its name a couple of months ago - I have been going through and wikilinking dozens of occurrences of the old name. StAnselm (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. As the article says, they are Britain's foremost auctioneers of military medals. StAnselm (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a single reference/source meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. We have mere mentions-in-passing at best and PR/announcements as sources. We require a source that discusses the topic company in detail and containing "Independent Content" which I am unable to locate.  HighKing++ 13:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And yet it is obviously a significant auction house, as attested by multiple independent reliable sources. As well as those cited in the article, there is also Investing in Collectables: An Investor's Guide to Turning Your Passion Into a Portfolio (published by John Wiley & Sons) and The Daily Telegraph Guide to Investing, as well as the Jeffrey Archer novel Nothing Ventured. Perhaps this is a situation where WP:IAR is in order. StAnselm (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that a mention in a Jeffrey Archer novel - a novel which isn't even notable enough for its own article page - is as a sign of notability? And if not, lets IAR? Sure, that sounds convincing.  HighKing++ 10:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Archer novel is obviously notable, it's just that nobody's created the article yet. Anyway, just to be clear, I believe this article passes GNG with the Tatler and trade magazine references. StAnselm (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you're joking but just to be sure - a mention in a novel doesn't convey notability. We have guidelines. Sources need to pass NCORP which requires Independent Content and significant in-depth content, not a mention.  HighKing++ 13:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstood me - I wasn't saying the Archer reference contributed to GNG. But it is now in the article and it contributes to the article being "more than a very brief, incomplete stub" as mentioned in WP:CORPDEPTH. StAnselm (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by the bit about adding it into the article so that the article is more than a brief incomplete stub. The reason for deletion is a lack of sourcing which is why we're discussing here. If we find sources, we'll have enough to write the article. Combining a snippet here and a snippet there from different sources which fails NCORP isn't going to translate to a notable topic - we don't combine sources when we're looking at notability, *each* source much meet the criteria. See WP:SIRS and WP:NCORP.  HighKing</b>++ 15:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. We can now add "The Independent" to the list of sources that call the auction house "prominent" (under its former name). I'll continue to look for an article with SIGCOV, as that is lacking at present. But the number of mention-in-passings (in BBC News, Telegraph, Independent) are cumulative over 30+ years. The company name is recognizable by the public and a household word amongst collectors in the UK. On eBay, for example, you can buy the "DNW Dix Noonan Webb Auction Catalogue-Ancient & World Coins Numismatic-Dec 2013" which the cover says is their 300th edition. It would presume a company that's published 300 editions of a catalogue would be notable. BBQboffin (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just about everything you've said above has zero bearing on establishing notability. Take a look at WP:NCORP especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Can you link to a source you believe passes NCORP? <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the Roland Arkell article does, barely. It compares the company's strategy of setting a higher buyer's premium compared to smaller rivals (Spink & Son, Bonhams, etc.) in the numismatic market.  Admittedly, Antiques Trade Gazette isn't the New York Times, and a lot of the article content looks like it's from the company, but there is an author for the article in an independent publication.  A couple more like this and I think it's over the bar.  On the company website for press coverage there's over 120 news articles that mention the company just in 2019.  Most are about a particular auction and say very little about the company except for a quote from one of the founders.  But some of them are going to have a few lines or maybe a few paragraphs about "the largest coin auctioneer in London".  BBQboffin (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think an article about how they're raising their premiums can be described as promotional. StAnselm (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about it being promotional? There are two primary NCORP tests that each source must meet (see WP:SIRS). WP:ORGIND requires "Independent content" such that in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So, an article which regurgitates the company's announcement without adding any Independent analysis/opinion/etc is essentially PRIMARY content and fails ORGIND. Each reference must also meet WP:CORPDEPTH (and excludes stuff that fails ORGIND). Pointing out that the company has been mentioned or has lots of coverage is an argument to avoid at AfD. Similarly, pointing out that an article referred to the company as " " is meaningless with regards to our guidelines. We require articles/sources (preferably with links) which meet NCORP, at least two and preferably more, and *each* one meets NCORP criteria. So far, none meet our criteria for establishing notability. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 15:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.