Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IronmongeryDirect

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. No prejudice against recreation if notability can be proven. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IronmongeryDirect

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotional article that is sourced with press releases only. Google News search did not turn up anything better. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is indeed a vitrine/directory. I wasn't luckier finding third-party references. Alfy32 (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yeah, everything I could find was either a re-printed press release or an advertorial. The company seems to be quite upfront about that and almost all list the company as the "source" or "author". The three provided as sources for the article are among the few that seem to have been written by people not directly connected to the organisation, which is a start, but they still seem to be (essentially) re-prints of company announcements. I'm not seeing anything that would suggest the company has had the sort of significant impact on industry or depth of coverage that would help the subject meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Certainly not the sort of egregious promo-spam we're used to seeing, but I still don't think notability has been adequately established. Stalwart111 00:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Alfy32 (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I will agree that this is a bad article, but what is the threshold for a compmny being significant. We have articles on many high street chains, but manufacturers and wholesalers tend to have a lower profile, so that they less easily get articles, though they may be economically at least as significant. This apparetnly has a tunrover of £18M. We do not have statements about capitalisation (or net assets) or profits, which might be a better test. But where does the boundary lie? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for your comments, but could you refer to some policy under WP:N? See also WP:AADD. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2013 (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.