Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inventive Leisure

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. Further discussion related to merging can take place on the talk page, as always. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inventive Leisure[edit]

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

Doesn't establish notability, and reads like an advertisement. Parrot of Doom 14:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does it read like an advertisement? It doesn't say things like "Come to our bars for a great night out". Rather it's all pretty mundane stuff about company acquisition and turnover. As I have already commented on your talk page there is plenty of coverage for this, which I will add over the next few days. There might be a justification to merge with Revolution (vodka bar) but we don't need AfD for that. Quantpole (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete. Although it no longer reads like an advertisement (I have removed unsourced text), it appears to be of minor significance at best. The threshold for inclusion is a combination of reliable third party references and notability - without evidence of these I say delete. --Jza84 | Talk 15:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [1], [2] and [3] for more. Quantpole (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I admire the reworking that has gone into the article this evening. Although I have reservations as to the long-term 'articleness' of the topic, it's now inline with policy and so believe keep is the right option. --Jza84 | Talk 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. This is apparently about a chain of vodka bars. Surprisingly, Google News does yield a few relevant results, but looking through them they seem to be either inclusions in "Top 100 Companies" lists or routine coverage of corporate announcements of profit and loss statements and the like. That sort of coverage does not turn a business into an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Revolution (vodka bar). That article is currently a two sentence stub, but "Revolution" is the name the general public will see first on the shingle. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've rewritten and expanded the article so it's hopefully all nicely sourced now. I believe it meets the GNG by being the subject of significant coverage over a number of years. In addition, looking at WP:CORP, it says "Examples of such sources include independent press coverage, analyst reports, and profiles by companies such as Hoover's (a commercial source)." when talking about publicly traded companies (which this was). It seems that financial reports and the like should not be excluded from determining notability. It has also got a profile in Hoover's, which is specifically mentioned in the guideline. The coverage available is more than simply announcements of profit and loss, and includes interviews with the founders, lots of details of takeover speculation (which I haven't included in the article but is easily found for those who care to look), analytical business coverage and so on. Quantpole (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now, sources establish notability. Parrot of Doom 00:09, 12 February 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.