Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Chorley Art & Antiques


 * 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-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 13:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Simon Chorley Art & Antiques

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Company has been associated with some notable matters but is not notable in its own right. This article is self-promotion. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've cleaned up the article and added citations - there were already a good number and more can easily be added. Also removed some unsupported claims. What remains is verifiably true; the firm is shown to be a notable auctioneer of old repute in a most conservative and cautious part of the world. The firm has handled some very large and notable sales; Simon Chorley the boss is himself also notable, not an irrelevant fact given that it's his firm and he's part of it (and yes, I know notability is not inherited, but no inheritance is needed as he's physically there). Frankly it's hard to imagine how an auctioneer in a provincial city could be more notable than Chorley's - demonstrably old, respected, and successful. And charitable with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you have done but if you take out the notability of clients and people they are associated with, all you have left is a small firm of provincial auctioneers with no clear notability. They seem like a fine firm but so are my dentists, accountants and solicitors and none of them have an article. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * By all means add back anything you think I've been too harsh on - I'm just trying to show what is notable about the firm, with evidence for that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Note this article-halving, reference-stripping hatchet job by a WP:SPA back in June.


 * Keep This is an auction house that's notable within that small field of high-end auction houses. There's nothing unduly over-promotional in here. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 3 January 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.