Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nooq


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Sources were offered to support the subject's notability, but they were not found convincing. There is a rough consensus to delete. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  02:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The Nooq

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

No indication of notability. Remsense 诉  07:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: No content, just promotion. The sources are all just user-provided promotional listings.  No indication of notability, and a search found no mention in any reliable source.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism,  and Montana.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  11:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Promotional spam. Unreliable sourcing and no indication of notability. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk)  18:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The book provides one page of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "When a mountain is your backyard, it makes sense to go big. The Nooq cabin is all about big spaces: cathedral ceilings, fat soaking tubs, and enormous glass windows. It's also about big ideas: the clean elegance of Scandinavian design, the luminous warmth of natural light. The Nooq gets it all right, ticking off a perfect balance of style, comfort, and killer setting. Since it was completed in 2019, this contemporary retreat in Whitefish, Montana, has become a style icon. Everyone, it seems, wants to live in a Nooq. The custom work of two globetrotting photographers, Andrea Dabene and Alex Strohl, this 2,600-square-foot (242 sq m) home is tucked into a hillside forest of conifers and wildflowers but is close enough to the slopes of nearby Whitefish Mountain Resort to have ski-in access. The Nooq is roomy, ..."   The article notes: "Featuring three gabled living spaces connected by hallways, the nooq has three bedrooms and 3.5 baths. Each “gabled” section has two floors, and as the overall structure is built into the hillside, there’s a basement level with garage. Good news for ski bums during winter: It also has ski-in access and there’s a clear sightline across the valley to neighboring ski slopes. While the surrounding views of the Montana forests are beautiful, it’s the nooq’s zen design and modern aesthetic that really sets it apart from other popular Instagram cabins."   The article notes: "It’s a challenge to find anything as architectural and elegant as the Nooq in a land populated by antler chandeliers and rustic quilts, and the calming minimalism of this space helps accentuate the already glorious nature right outside the front door. A floating, wood-burning fireplace creates a mod focal point in the open-plan family room, while stainless steel appliances, Danish furnishings, cookware by Le Creuset, and a freestanding tub with mountain views elevate the rest of the space to a luxurious, tranquil retreat."   The article notes: "Lately, like so many others, they've been staying close to home—swapping a life on the go for the solitude of their Scandinavian-inspired cabin in Whitefish, Montana. Built in 2019, the mountain retreat is now up for rent on a limited basis as the duo begin a second project nearby and contemplate ways to share their love of the outdoors with others."  <li> The article notes from Google Translate: "Set in one of the mountains of Whitefish, Montana, a mecca for ski fans, The Nooq, built by adventurous photographers Alex Strohl and Andrea Dabene, is a reflection of the couple's love for the region and the stunning nature around it. ... The first thing you see when you enter the house, with its triangular structure, is the jaw-dropping view from outside." </li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Nooq to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * How are these reliable sources, exactly? They seem neither independent nor are the mentions substantial. Remsense  诉  06:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I responded below. Cunard (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm still worried about notability after the sources presented above, specifically the WP:PROMO and WP:NOTTRAVEL part of WP:NOT. The article is written very promotionally, I'm not sure if the Manual article and the Dwell article are reliable, Conde Nast only has a blurb and they may get affiliate monies from it, the Cabin Tripping book started out on Instagram... I can't access the book, but all of the articles tell you how to book the Airbnb... I'm really not sure it's honestly independently architecturally notable. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

<ul><li>Comment: Responding to the above two comments.  Two independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject  Two sources that provide independent significant coverage about the subject are: <ol><li>, a book titled Cabin Tripping: Where to Go to Get Away from It All, devotes an entire page to discussing The Nooq. Released by the reputable publisher Artisan Books, the book provides 377 words about the subject. This is a high quality independent source that provides significant coverage of the subject.</li><li>, an article from Digital Trends publication The Manual, provides 860 words about the subject. The consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 414 and WikiProject Video games/Sources is that Digital Trends is a reliable source. Both Digital Trend and The Manual are owned by Digital Trends Media Group and founded by the same person, Ian Bell. Bell serves as publisher of both websites. The Manual has editorial oversight. I consider The Manual to be a reliable source. The article has a link to The Nooq's website but the link is not an affiliate link. I consider The Manual to be an independent source.</li></ol> These two sources by themselves are sufficient to establish notability.  WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE and WP:PROMO  WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE says: "Travel guides: an article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone numbers or street addresses of the 'best' restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should list only those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be more than welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage." The policy forbids adding telephone numbers and cafe prices to articles on cities. It forbids mentioning distant attractions on articles on cities. The policy does not forbid creating an architecture-related article like The Nooq. Regarding WP:PROMO, I edited the article to remove promotional content. I do not consider the article to be promotional anymore. I am open to suggestions on how to further improve the article's neutrality. The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Deletion policy says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Editing policy says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC) </li></ul> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 09:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Baillargeon article specifically includes a link to book the Airbnb, though. I have no tolerance for articles that exist purely to promote products, and even if sources exist, WP:NOT can still apply. I don't see a single source here that isn't a listicle or dedicated to promoting the cabin in some way, apart from arguably the book, which even says in its listing that it was originally created by a guy who runs an Instagram account and is linked with Dwell contributors. I typically fight to keep articles on buildings if there's coverage, but this article needs to be tied to a frisbee and flung into the sun. SportingFlyer  T · C  13:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Cunard, thank you for the diligence and clarity in your response, as well as your efforts to improve the article. Seriously, it's people like you that keep the site going. I think I still respectfully disagree that these two sources establish notability—in part because I'm not being generous when there are only two, the smallest number bigger than one. Two, mathematically the  number of sources one could attempt to write an encyclopedia article with. There are other sources in the article, but they simply do not register. By comparison to the ones you've singled, they lack any substance.
 * But! While I suppose my fuzzy boundary for establishing WP:N is a rung or two higher than it is for others, you really moved the needle most of the way there for me, thank you. You've have proven it wouldn't be at all egregious if this was kept, though I still would prefer deletion by a hair or two. The bubbling suspicion that the two sources aren't meaningfully independent per SportingFlyer factors in for me as well. Community consensus can establish whether sources are generally reliable, but not whether they are always reliable. Remsense  诉  14:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the book saying "in its listing that it was originally created by a guy who runs an Instagram account and is linked with Dwell contributors", none of this calls into question the book's reliability or independence with respect to The Nooq. The Manual links to the Digital Trends editorial guidelines, which says: "Audiences demand honesty and integrity from Digital Trends and its content. To maintain our independence and uphold trust, Editorial staffers and freelance contributors cannot accept compensation of any kind in exchange for a review, news coverage, or inclusion in an article or video. To further ensure the integrity of our coverage, the Editorial team maintains independence from other departments and will only cover stories, companies, and products that meet the needs of our audience. Communication between Sales and Editorial is important to the business, however, and that partnership is facilitated by the Editor in Chief." The "Commerce content" section of the editorial guidelines says: "Commerce-related content, such as deals, aims to recommend products that meet the needs and quality expectations of our audience. To maintain independence, this content is created by a separate Commerce team at Digital Trends, which works closely with the Editorial team to identify important products that meet both teams’ needs. It also seeks guidance from our product experts when possible." An affiliate link in the article does not render the article non-independent because the staffers on the Editorial team are independent from the staffers on the Commerce team. Editors raised good points at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 264:<ol><li>"So long as the reviews are not written for the sake of kickbacks and the reviewed product is not sold on the review, I don't think it should matter. A reasonable degree of separation is needed to not become a dependent coverage. Even on the Oregonian, it says on the bottom 'Note to readers: If you purchase something through one of our affiliate links we may earn a commission.' With declining subscription sales, news/magazines are going more and more readership purchase commission driven. This puts more challenge on Wikipedians editorial discretion."</li><li>"As long as the affiliate links do not influence editorial decisions, I don't see any concerns. News websites have to survive in some way, unlike Wikipedia editors they can't do everything for free. Let's say you are a product reviewer at a tech news website. If you want to maintain visitors to your website, you have to keep producing content. If you have to link to a product anyway, why not use affiliate links? There's no harm in that, and you get kickbacks from Amazon/Newegg/other online retailer (note: not the product manufacturer)."</li></ol>The Manual's editorial guidelines make it clear that the affiliate links do not influence its editorial decisions. Notability says, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." multiple means "more than one". Two high-quality independent reliable sources that combined provide over 1,237 words of coverage about The Nooq are more than sufficient to allow it to meet Notability. Cunard (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Except they're not high quality, the sources are very clearly promoting an Air bed and breakfast. I really do not understand why you are fighting for this one. You link to a discussion, but you ignore the fact someone brings up WP:PRODUCTREV: see PRODUCTREV #2. I haven't seen the book, but all of the other reviews are essentially product reviews - the goal of the article is to advertise this Air bed and breakfast. I've written a few articles about hotels, and there's no reason why the information here couldn't be used as a source in the article, but typically a notable hotel or apartment rental will have at least a couple articles which have absolutely nothing to do with promotion. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * and contain the authors' commentary and analysis of The Nooq. I do not find the authors' commentary and analysis to be "advertis[ing]". I do not consider the authors or their publishers to be non-independent of The Nooq. I am supporting retention because The Nooq meets the notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Baillargeon explicitly includes a link to book the place, and uses photos directly from the owner. It's not independent enough. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Manual received permission from the owner to use the owner's photos. This does not render the text of the article non-independent. People have donated copyright materials to Wikipedia in the past such as a photo of themselves. A Wikipedia article's use of a photo donated from the article subject does not compromise the Wikipedia article's independence from the subject. As noted in The Manual's editorial guidelines, the publication's editorial team "maintains independence from other departments" such as the commerce team that is responsible for affiliate links. The article's independence is upheld through that separation. Cunard (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We are arguing over the independence of a bare minimum number of sources about a Wikipedia article which was clearly a pay to play. I really can't believe you're digging on in supporting keeping this obvious spam. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the article being considered "obvious spam", I removed the promotional content and consider the article neutral now. I am willing to make further changes to address concerns about neutrality. Cunard (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2024 (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.
 * I'm leaning delete. Holiday homes, like restaurants, always generate publicity of some sort. They would be of no use if they weren't being advertised widely enough for people to find them. And they exist in vast numbers. For a holiday chalet to achieve encyclopaedia-worthy notability, I think we need quite a high standard of sourcing, something to show that it stands out of the crowd. Sources that end by directing the reader to a website where they can hire the chalet are almost certainly a direct result of the owner's publicity activities, and not independent. Listicles of the "Ten best places" sort are also very weak. For example, this particular chalet is presented as a piece of Scandinavian-style architecture and interior design; if we had a reasonably in-depth article in an architecture or design magazine (not a travel, society or ski magazine), I'd be happier. Cunard has done a good job of trimming the article to neutral wording, but the result is that the article doesn't indicate that the chalet is any more notable than many other rentable buildings; and the references are still promotional, and the article's existence here is undoubtedly useful publicity. I could make a much better case for the Wee Retreat, a converted toilet in Norfolk (UK), but I really don't think it's helpful to clog up Wikipedia with articles about not especially out-of-the-ordinary holiday buildings. Elemimele (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2024 (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.