Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avandi

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. Consensus is narrow, but clear. The subject does not meet the higher standard of sourcing required to support notability of corporate entities, and there is no appetite for refactoring this into an article on the purpose. As the article has been moved out of process, the move was obviously potentially controversial, it is considered null for purposes of AfD closure. No prejudice against restoring to a draft under the title of the person for submission through the AfC process. BD2412 T 00:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avandi[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Reviewed under new article review process. No indication of wp:notability. Of the three references, one is to their own website, and the other were medium/short pieces on trade websites, both appear to be mostly Avandi-generated content. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google's not showing any great wealth of independent sources, and the three cited sources are thin. Non-notable per nomination. --Lockley (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I changed the "further reading" section name to "bibliography" to make it clear that it was a list of sources. I also put each of those sources as in-line citations. I believe that the time span (2014-2020) of those sources and their reputability establishes the subject's notability. The two design prizes won by the subject are further indicators of notability. --Brookford (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC) EDIT: I removed the subject's own website as an in-line reference. --Brookford (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 05:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There has been some debate in the past at AfD on topics which are companies, but which rely entirely on one or two well-respected people in their fields. The issue is that most of the sources provide in-depth information on the individual(s) but not the company - which is the topic of this article. I'm of the opinion that the founder may very well meet the guidelines for notability but based on WP:NCORP, there must be references that deal with the company. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: well the sources seem pretty split on Avandi/Ariane van Dievoet, with an edge towards Avandi I'd say. Also Avandi seems to be the professional name of the designer in addition to just being a company name. --Brookford (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 17:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Ariane van Dievoet. I reframed the article to be about the company's founder. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources in the article such as these three articles to allow Ariane van Dievoet to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the procedural aspects of this, but all of the discussions are about the topic and I think that that is what the AFD discussion would be about and certainly what it has been about. IMO an article about a different topic is best made & handled separately. North8000 (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search of "Ariane Van Dievoet" and "AVANDI" give virtually no meaningful coverage and the few two paragraph write ups don't really lend themselves to notability. Praxidicae (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

10:18, 12 August 2020 (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.