Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devoucoux (2nd nomination)

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. henrik•talk 12:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devoucoux[edit]

I added a prod tag a couple of weeks ago, but it was contested and removed, with the edit summary "add external link - remove Prod - long term article deserves discussion". The external link that was added was a user review from a blog/sales site. I was not able to find reliable third party sources for this article, and the only two other links are to the site of the brand in question and another sales site. Dana boomer (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be WP:CORP Lets drink Tea 21:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment certainly notability is not established but I suspect notability might actually exist. I'm going to try to rescue this one. --Boston (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - a quick google search tells me this just might be a notable company. Here are a few, perhaps non-stellar sources, but I think together they do indicate some degree of notability. [1], [2], [3], [4]. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The company is a leader in its field. I have added content, references and external links to the article, which establish the company's notability. This aricle is well worth rescuing. Unionsoap (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This company is a world leader in its industry, and that claim is sourced in the article. Kingturtle (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. three wikiprojects notified of this discussion. -- Banjeboi 10:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. Per WP:CSB amongst other issues. Clearly this company is more intent on producing product than actually getting media coverage. A quick look at their website shows a press agent's wet dream of possibilities with Olympic and elite riders using their product yet all they have is wimpy press alerts and popup box details. Give a saddle to his royal hunkiness and land a picture in some of the newsprint outlets. If someone can point to the equestrian trade media that may help here as well. From what I can tell they certainly seem to be a leading manufucturer of customized saddles. More sourcing would help though. -- Banjeboi 10:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and suspect it's a super-snobby French saddler that don't need no stinking adverts (or badgers). Just imagine how upset they'll be to find themselves on Wikipedia sharing server space next to Dog poop girl. --Boston (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These articles in independent reliable sources provide significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable sources have been presented that establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the sources prove it exists but do not prove notability per our standards. Should be some reason to list it in an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. How do the sources that I pointed to above not prove notability per our standards? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because most every business in the world can claim some minor coverage, especially in trade-specific magazines and other publications that print short clips often from press releases. What is entirely lacking is anything at all specifying why this company would be notable to our readers in any way whatsoever. Existence is not notability. If this company were indeed a leading company in any field instead of just making that claim itself and it getting picked up in reports then we should have some unambiguous sources to that end. DreamGuy (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that I linked are in L'Express, the French equivalent of Time, and Les Échos, the equivalent of The Wall Street Journal, not in trade specific magazines, and they run to over 500 words each completely dedicated to the article subject - not short clips. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I think the sources found do indicate notability, however, in its current state the article reads too much like self-promotion.Nrswanson (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think the sources indicate notability, that's a reason for keeping the article. The promotional tone can be addressed through editting. That's what the {{advert}} tag is for. -- Whpq (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After looking over the sources and the text, I don't believe this company satisfies our notability guidelines for corporations. I admit that it has a relatively large place in a niche industry, but that's not what's important here. Further involvement in world horse events could confer notability and at that time the article can be recreated. JRP (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above per corp. Eusebeus (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly an esoteric company but seems to have coverage in a range of sources and be prominent in its field (I can't ride a horse to save my life though) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:23, 22 March 2009 (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.