Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starkey International Institute for Household Management (2nd nomination)


 * 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. W.marsh 21:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Starkey International Institute for Household Management
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Deleted after Articles for deletion/Starkey International Institute for Household Management with very little discussion; consensus at Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8 was to relist. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 16:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I see no reason to delete. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable institution which has been covered to a significant extent by multiple reliable, published sources. Picaroon (t) 22:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly notable. I've added some inline citations. --Dhartung | Talk 23:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, may have been borderline before, but is clearly across the line now in terms of "notability." I couldn't view the content before when I argued to relist at the DRV, but I see nothing outside the bounds of BLP, and certainly nothing that can't be resolved on a talk page. --JayHenry 04:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Plenty of reliable source material from which to tell their story on Wikipedia. Meets WP:N. -- Jreferee    t / c  22:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless better sources can be found, delete for failure to establish notability. The sources in the article so far establish the existence of the school but do not rise to the level required for WP:ORG.  They are primarily about a particular trend in conspicuous consumption and mention the school mostly as an example, not as the primary subject of the article.  Rossami (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by the coverage not meeting "level required" by Notability (organizations and companies), as that page's criteria are met by the sources listed. I quote from the guideline you linked - "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." The sources listed meet all such criteria listed there: they are reliable, they are secondary, and they cover the school in depth and to a significant extent. The fact that the school is not the primary subject of the articles does not make the coverage insignificant - an article can be about one subject and still cover another subject in depth, as several of the articles linked do. The guideline doesn't seem to support your comment. Picaroon (t) 01:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you only on your interpretation of the third criterion - I do not consider those articles to have covered the school in any significant depth. That is, of course, a judgment call and you are free to disagree with it.  But the standard application of WP:ORG is generally held to be that the article must be primarily about the subject in order to count as evidence of notability.  Find better evidence and I'll withdraw my opposition.  The evidence so far, however, describes a company not significantly different from any other new venture that got picked up for a human-interest story on a slow news day.  Rossami (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the source from The Times is originally a story from The Atlantic Monthly. I doubt anyone would call a story from The Atlantic a "human-interest story on a slow news day" (The Atlantic is famous for having its reporters work on stories for months.)  It devotes around 1600 words directly to Starkey.  Two articles in the NY Times, the Atlantic Monthly, a large portion of a book...  the stories are about hospitality management and they identify Starkey as a leader in its particular industry.  Claims of "non-notable" don't carry much weight against sources making claims like that. --JayHenry 05:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You way overrate the significance of the coverage - are all the others mentioned to an equal or greater extent by these sources notable because their significance of coverage is greater? Carlossuarez46 00:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete many of the sources do not give significant coverage to the school. In the story itself, The Campbell Recorder gives much more coverage the concept of good help is hard to find and mentions the place as where butlers come from. The Campbell Recorder is perhaps a reliable source and since it contains as headlines such wonders as this and this every empty lot awaiting the spade or decision of the Campbell, California city council is now notable. The Irish Independent devotes 4 sentences to the school in its report on the surge in demand for butlers - it also mentions a placement agency for butlers by such lax standards now notable too probably. One of the NY Times articles has a few quotes from the founder of the establishment - mentioning her affiliation - but the gist of the article was Princess Diana's butler being in attendance at a butler convention (must have been one helluva party) - also the placement agency for butlers is mentioned and its founder quoted (ah big case for notability now) as are some butlers who are given their 15 minutes of fame in the artcle and now should have pages here to memorialize that. The Atlantic Monthly article in The Times covers the school as one part of its article on the experts rich people employ to make their lives run smoothly - in addition to the school, there are a lifestyle consultant, a bank type, a trust officer. They're all notable now too by the same logic. The only article that gives significant coverage to the school is the other NY Times article which again gives coverage to various personages affiliated with the school, a former butler to the governor of New York, etc. Are they, too, now notable. This falls below the line. Carlossuarez46 00:39, 16 November 2007 (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.