Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Dwelling
- 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. Kurykh (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Better Dwelling
- Better Dwelling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company. Just passing mentions as sources, and no really detectable signs of notability, just ad-speak. PROD tag removed with no actual improvements. Calton | Talk 08:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep! - Significant Canadian media company syndicated by a large US media outlet. A media company's significance is based on its reputation as a source, and being sourced by international outlets in multiple languages is speaks to notability IMO. A search for Better Dwelling in Google News excluding the company's domain comes up with 122k results. The wiki page was modeled after the Visual Capitalist Wikipedia page however, which may have been a bad structure to follow. ArchitectureNerd (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
— Note to closing admin: XfD.
- A media company's significance is based on its reputation as a source, and being sourced by international outlets in multiple languages is speaks to notability. No it doesn't: being the topic of significant non-trivial coverage by reliable, independent sources does. --Calton | Talk 18:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the talk) 17:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)]
- Note: This debate has been included in the talk) 17:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)]
- Note: This debate has been included in the talk) 17:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)]
- Note: This debate has been included in the talk) 17:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)]
- Delete a self-promotional article on an subject that lacks independent 3rd party coverage. The article is a combination of OR and advertorial content, strongly suggesting that it's WP:TOOSOON for this business to have an entry in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)]
- Delete. Thaere might prove to be notability here, but the article would need to be started over in a more objective fashion. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 4 February 2017 (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.