Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaeth Design


 * 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 (NAC). RMHED  20:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Spaeth Design

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The subject of this article does not appear to meet notability criteria outlined at WP:CORP. There is a New York Times reference, but Spaeth Design is not the subject of the article - they are just mentioned briefly. Peacock (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete  Company is not any more notable than thousands of others, fails WP:CORP. Paste  Let’s have a chat. 20:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Change of vote in light of new references found. Paste Let’s have a chat. 18:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Eastmain (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  —Eastmain (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The New York Times reference is significantly more than a brief mention, and there are several other references. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per Ron Eastmain. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But Ron didn't say to keep ... Sandboxer (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sandy, us old guys can get con fused. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet WP:CORP - the NYT article isn't about Spaeth, it really just uses Spaeth as an example. Sandboxer (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's plenty more coverage found by the Google News search linked above, including articles about this company in publications such as the Los Angeles Times, the Toronto Star and Crain's New York Business. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it would be fairer to say that these articles mention the company rather than being about the company? Paste  Let’s have a chat. 14:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. No, it would be very unfair to say that., and  are completely focused on Spaeth Design, as are many other of those Google News results. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assesment of these refs, but are they not new ones?  Paste  Let’s have a chat. 18:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "new ones". Which sources did you think I was referring to in my "keep" statement? Each one is the first hit in the respective publication in the Google News results linked at the top of this discussion. The point of providing search links at the top of deletion discussions is that people should actually look at them before coming to conclusions about notability, rather than rely on hunches and guesswork. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2009 (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.