Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aya (kitchens)

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Aya (kitchens)

Aya (kitchens) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable company, commercial puff-piece produced by WP:SPA. TJRC (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by nom: Created by a WP:SPA editor solely to promote a small local company, the article is nearly an orphan, with most links to it being gratuitous entries in "See also" sections of articles on kitchens. The editor recently moved the article from Aya kitchens to Aya (kitchens) solely to get it onto the AYA disambiguation page for increased exposure. TJRC (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional information: the article is apparently a re-creation of AyA Kitchens and Baths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was speedily deleted on December 9, 2008: [1]. I am guessing (but only guessing) that the editor creating this article, Nehctik (talk · contribs · logs), is affiliated with Aya. Note that "Nehctik" is "Kitchen" spelled backwards. TJRC (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - the company doesn't really seem to meet WP:CORP at this point; I checked the 2008 NKBA awards as mentioned in the article and didn't find the company listed where it was suggested. No outside reporting on the company I could find. For the record, the same editor did create the previously speedied article mentioned in the nom. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Don't Delete -This company seems to pass the grade of being notable WP:CORP, especially in the area of green building where very few cabinet companies have a third party certified LEED compliant program. Looks like the comment posted above recommending 'delete' because the 2008 NKBA reference could not be found is not valid as the reference is here. Jollygreeng (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I see, it appears to be a regional chapter award, not the national award - the link in the article goes to the national association. I stand by my opinion, though; second place in a regional award doesn't really assert notability, to me. If you have references that indicate the company meets the criteria in WP:CORP, I'd be interested in seeing that. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• The criteria as I read it in WP:CORP requires "significant coverage in secondary sources." From what I see under listed 'References' and moreover, listed on their website under 'media' this seems to be the case (I counted 24 articles listed, most from major media outlets). That said, I'm just a newbie... Jollygreeng (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• As a data point, the regional first place winner, Bamco Custom Woodworking, doesn't have an article, either. For that matter, neither do Andros Kitchen & Bath Designs[2], Peter Salerno[3], or Beyond The Box[4], who were first place finishers at the national level. I'm thinking that this industry award, without something more, doesn't confer notability; especially when it's only regional and only second place. (I did learn that Peter Salerno was a notorious thief and member of the Dinner Set Gang, though.) TJRC (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete promotional article that is a recreation of one that was deleted (CSD A7) by a primary editor whose name is "Kitchen" spelled backward. The company fails to reach the bar of WP:CORP as regional U.S. awards won't suffice. B.Wind (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Relisting - very spammy at the moment, but I do see possibilities in the Google News references - [5] Black Kite 09:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The proquest database also has a follow-up interview (80:10, Sep 2008) from FDM magazine which discusses the award and the company's work with Habitat for Humanity. Ottre 10:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 09:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, weakly, and stub. Minor industry awards, listings of new corporations, and the circulation of press releases by wire services aren't enough to confer notability on a business, in my opinion. Nor do offhand mentions in relation to their charitable sponsorships make much of a case. So the Google news search doesn't provide a whole lot to go on. Still, this is a consumer related firm that may some day generate real independent reviews of its products and work in disinterested third party sources. I'd edit out all of the hornblowing, but keep a stub here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Tony made a good point, even if he deleted it, so I'll repost it and adopt it as my own: 'I'm a bit worried about the "may some day" in this comment - in the past, articles have had to have the notability first, instead of being created first with hopes that the notability would be established one day.' The mere possibility of future notability is insufficient basis for a Wikipedia article. TJRC (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, some of the searches called it a Japanese company, and used the spelling AyA, which I think the software can handle correctly. (Been a long time since I've looked at an article with a lower case initial letter. That may be obsolete.) If there are two different companies being identified by that string, it's a somewhat more serious issue. That said, I tend to give hard goods businesses that will be used in people's homes the benefit of a doubt, if only because they are likely to be reviewed in reliable sources sometime, even if they ain't yet. This may not be an appropriate case for such leniency. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I get that some of the secondary source references, such as FDM Magazine's Sept. 2008 article (pp. 56-7) on the company's environmental initiatives, could be construed as "the circulation of press releases" but the Oct.2006 article in the same magazine is a Feature and discusses Aya as one of the fastest growing companies among the "largest companies in the North American secondary woodworking industry" (FDM Oct.2006 p.33). This seems notable to me. --Jollygreeng (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I believe the article now meets our standards for inclusion, as it has now been cited and referenced. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment The issue isn't sourcing, really; it's notability. All we really have is that the company came in second place on a regional industry award, and had its products discussed in an industry magazine, or got a passing mention in news coverage about related topics. I don't mean to be crusading against this, but if a small privately-held kitchen remodeling company in a Toronto suburb meets the notability requirements, then almost any company does. If that's the new standard, great. TJRC (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - That's the problem with the current Notability guidelines, what does substantiate notability? As we see with this piece, third party - reliable - verifiable and creditable sources have been found and cited/referenced in the article. However, a case can be made that the company is not notable enough for inclusion. It is a discussion that has been going on for years now, and if the policy does not tighten up on what establishes notability definitively, disagreement will still be waged long after we are gone :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 10:50, 26 February 2009 (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.