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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DuPont Registry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable publishing company that produces a few for-sale magazines. Article doesn't even assert notability, really. Speedy deletion was turned down on the basis that a cited source did allege notability (not sure I agree with that sort of rationale, since the assertion wasn't in the article, but the point is moot, as a third editor removed this source as non-independent, based on company's own press release). Presently the would-be article cites no sources at all, seems to serve no purpose than to promote the company's website, and was created by what appears to be a single-purpose account, Spilchards (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that has done nothing but create this article and add closely related spam links in other articles referring to the company the article is about, upload images related to the company, and create another now-deleted article for another non-notable publication that the editor is probably also directly associated with, as seems to be the case here. Also, this article is itself re-creation of previously deleted material. This version of the article was de-{{prod}}ed, after the speedy was rejected, on the basis that the company turns up a fair number of times in Google. But nothing has been done by any editor to establish notability with multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. PS: The fact that the publications are unusual (they target only the ultra-wealthy) does not make them or the publisher notable, and neither does the fact that some of the listed properties, yachts, etc. may themselves be notable. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Re. "nothing has been done by any editor to establish notability with multiple instances of non-trivial coverage", following WP:BEFORE could have dealt with that. The first 2 pages of results from the Google News Archives throw up all of these: Chicago Tribune, Chicago Tribune, Orlando Sentinel, Orlando Sentinel, Herald-Journal, Miami Herald, Chicago Sun Times, TransWorldNews, DM News. Needless to say, there's a lot more coverage beyond that. Similarly, Google Books shows plenty of coverage ([1]). As for it being "re-creation of previously deleted material", if the same content had been previously deleted at AFD this would be a reason for deletion, but it was previously speedy-deleted as "unambiguous advertising or promotion", but I see little more than the basic facts about the subject in the current version. The article can be improved with readily available sources, and should be improved rather than deleted.--Michig (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Most of the coverage appears to be by local newspapers, and the gushing articles don't seem like real journalism in some cases, but promotional pieces. Frontier Restaurant in Albuquerque has had loads of non-trivial articles written about it locally, including full-color photos, and lots of positive prose. Note the redlink, which should stay that way until someone outside of the hometown crowd decides the business is noteworthy enough to significantly publish about. I can't argue with the Chicago ones on these grounds I suppose. But the first one we know nothing about (can't read it without paying). Second one: It's not really about duPont or their competitor Robb, but about the rich and their spending habits. The publications and their publishers are used as examples and quotation sources. But does an article that seemingly chose two random "cater to the rich" businesses, but the focus of which is whether such businesses are really viable in a depressed economy, genuinely demonstrate notability? It seems rather incidental to me, and flash-in-the-pan. Will people still write articles about duPont and his company in 5 years? Were they writing them 5 years ago? Third Chicago item is the same kind of piece. TransWorldNews isn't a reliable publication, but a news-ish blog whose business model is writing stories, for pay, based on your press release. DMNews is a direct marketing industry insider publication, so its notability-establishing power is extremely low, both for lack of independence from their subjects and lack of distribution to the general public (if I were really good at building model rockets and got written up in a model rocketry magazine, that would not make me Wikipedia notable). And so on. The case I'm making is that the company is faintly "interesting" - they are "unusual", even "strange" - and thus get trivial material written about them, like whether their and their competitors' sort of business model is doomed, whether their website has separate pages that look kind of like the magazines', or whether a notable athlete (the non-trivial part of the story, arguably) posed on one of their covers (all of these are actual stories you linked to above), and local coverage. Show me a profile in Forbes or WSJ. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 11:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why coverage in local newspapers, some of which are quite large local newspapers, and not local to the subject, should be discounted. Somehow I doubt that the Frontier Restaurant has received much coverage from newspapers on the other side of the States. I also see no reason why the fact that a lot of the news results are pay-per-view should count against them - you can often determine that they provide significant coverage without seeing the entire article. Please look at all of the Google News coverage yourself (about 1,650 results)- I doubt that a subject with that much coverage can be considered insufficiently notable for an article here. Google Books shows coverage in Forbes, and also other coverage such as this, amongst others. This doesn't need a profile in Forbes or WSJ to be notable, it simply has to pass WP:GNG, which it does more than adequately.--Michig (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Show me a profile in Forbes or WSJ". Phil Bridger (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say a pay-per-view source "counts against" the article's notability; I said it does not count for it, since no one has paid to get access to it and see if it helps establish notability. You have the argument backward. Local publications are often suspect as sources for notability claims because of neutrality/independence problems (such as the promotional wording I mentioned) and because of scale - what is "notable" on a local level is usually utterly insignificant on a larger scale. Also, I didn't even say that "a lot of" the news results are pay-per-view, I said one of them is. I feel you have not actually read and absorbed but simply skimmed what I wrote. Please try again. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the WSJ profile? You implied above that you would accept such a profile as evidence of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per users Michig and Bridger. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As indicated above, sources about this publisher/magazine chain do exist. I will try to improve the article with sources during the AfD period unless someone else gets around to doing so before me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please actually examine the sources closely, then. One isn't even a real news source but a website that simply reguritates press releases, and many of the rest are local publications writing gushy puff-pieces that are not necessarily independent enough of the subject to be taken seriously. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm referring to sources I have found on my own, in addition to the ones found by Michig. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keen-o. Thanks. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there are plenty of sources. For example, it looks like a bunch of newspaper editors all decided to assign reporters to find out how duPont Registry and its customers were doing in the current economic downturn. Abductive (reasoning) 01:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.