Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premier Marinas


 * 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. Article has been improved, and can be kept now. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 11:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Premier Marinas

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

SPAM article about a non-notable company. Of no encyclopaedic value. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Having been raved at for calling David, the author a spammer, I dare not use the word here. Indeed David's COI may actually be limited to the fact that he keeps his boat at one of their sites. But I still say delete - no attempt made to demonstrate notability. David probably cannot try "other stuff exists" - how many other marina companies have articles? &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM". Sorry Monty Python. . -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article has been copy-edited to minimize promotional tone. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Again I have asked for guidance, none is forthcoming, I have to disagree with the 'no attempt to demonstrate notability comment', I have included as referrence an article from the Yacht Harbour Association (an independent body) discussing the award of Gold Anchors to a number of Marinas operated by Premier, also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Village_%28marina%29 for an wiki article regarding another unconnected marina, I feel that your approach to content is completely subjective is damaging to the objective of Wikipedia as an open platform that requires new contributors in order grow. --Dcbreeze (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments and guidance both, I have added further references from established boating publications featuring Premier Marinas --Dcbreeze (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – The article has been copy edited to minimize promotional tone. This topic passes WP:GNG:
 * Significant coverage:
 * Coverage beyond a passing mention:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 10:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Coverage beyond a passing mention:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 10:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Coverage beyond a passing mention:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 10:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Coverage beyond a passing mention:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 10:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Coverage beyond a passing mention:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 10:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 10:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 10:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is easy to find refs for companies so it is easy to say they pass WP:GNG. Doesn't mean they should have a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The topic also passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

To Alan and RHaworth, we have demonstrated that the article complies with WP guidelines on promotional content and that Premier Marinas pass the WP guidance on notability. I have yet to see any genuine justification for your continued negative input. Of course it is easy to find articles on notable companies (that is the point), are you in fact saying that companies, notable or not have no place on WP? In which case I suggest that you submit a case to the relevant authorities for the removal of all commercial organisations from WP, I suspect that you will find that you don't get very far, as companies and businesses are a reality and have an impact and influence on real people in the real world, so excluding them will leave a huge hole in the objectives and purpose of WP. So can I also suggest that you stop trying to create a walled garden of WP based on your own subjective opinion of other peoples contributions and start contributing some notable and objective content yourself.--Dcbreeze (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The article does not meet the spirit of what WP is or the sentiment of WP:NOT. Allowing articles to be created under the notablity guidelines would mean that, taken to its limit, there would be 100,000s of article on companies watering down WP into virtually a business directory.


 * You also are putting up the fallacious argument of "all or nothing" with regard to the inclusion of companies. I am not saying or suggesting that we purge all articles about companies from WP. Some companies are well and truly notable . Microsoft is one example.


 * As for you comments about my subjectivity and the suggestion that I "start contributing some notable and objective content" they hold no weight since you don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is and you quite obviously have not done an analysis of my contributions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Dcbreeze, the primary issue at hand is that the article, as written, does not demonstrate why the company is notable. The article is written more like a brochure, which is almost certainly the reason behind the delete votes above. There seems to be decent amount of sources, which would help satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, but the sources are merely a list in the reference section. They are not necessarily used to support the text in the article. I suppose they establish the fact that this company exists, but there's a larger burden for inlcusion in WP. If you're going to change anyone's mind regarding whether or not this article should be kept, I would suggest that you A) focus on adding material to the article that demonstrates why this company is notable, and B) adding inline citations to support this (and the previously existing) material. None but shining hours (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Let the article be modified and fixed.Marikafragen (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the 'Spirit' of WP with what you wish WP to be, they may be different. I dont think you could say that the PM article is in anyway promotional or a brochure, great effort has been taken to ensure it isn't, it is simply descriptive of company that is notable in the sailing community and operates a number of facilities that are already listed on WP. So MS is a notable company if you are interested in Software, agreed, however Premier Marinas is notable if you are interested in keeping boats on the South Coast of England, why is one of higher value than another? unless of course you are being subjective.--Dcbreeze (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - As of this post, the article has been expanded and more inline citations have been added. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep based on its current form. The article is well sourced with reliable sources, not overly promotional (maybe a bit peacock, but it's not advert), meets WP:CORPDEPTH, and is well-written. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 13:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep after massive improvements by User:Northamerica1000. It sure is hard to argue with that guy!   Th e S te ve   04:51, 29 April 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.