Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/York Place Studios


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

York Place Studios

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable article created by SPA, fails WP:ORGDEPTH -- samtar whisper 13:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Comprehensively fails WP:ORG. All the coverage is from listings on industry sites, blogs, etc. The only exceptions are two articles from the Newcastle Evening Chronicle and the Newcastle Journal which are virtually identical and published on the same day—a local interest story about one of the partners when she was still in college. Neither of them mention the business at all. I can find nothing better. The "awards" are utterly non-notable. This has all the hallmarks of the paid-for article, springing fully formed from the hands of a "new" editor, complete with multiple perfectly formatted references (masquerading as independent reliable sources) and a perfectly formatted infobox . Note also that York Place Studios is a member of the 20Collective, an article by the Orangemoody paid editing sockfarm and deleted multiple times. Although created by an allegedly different user, he/she has the same modus operandi as the one who created Neil Palmer Photography (another non-notable member of the 20Collective). i.e. create the page first as a redirect and then return a week later to turn it into an article, . UGH! Voceditenore (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sneaky on the redirect. Frankly, this article screams "local." There is nothing that shows this place to be notable as far as having coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - A newspaper article, and a few blog posts and directory listings are not sufficient for establishing the notability of a company for purposes of having an encyclopedia article. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. I agree with 's assessment about paid editing. - MrX 01:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - it is possible that there are 2 or 3 notable wedding photographers in the world. It is not possible that articles on 2 wedding photographers were created independently using the same bogus "redirect method".  No indication of notability at all.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, for the reasons given above. -- Hoary (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * SNOW delete as there's simply not enough better solid coverage for a better notable company article. SwisterTwister   talk  22:10, 15 December 2015 (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.