Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surplus Record Machinery & Equipment Directory

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~~ userfy. Fails WP:GNG: Three times, Google results were used as evidence, but nobody found any (independent) source in them that would meet even the first criterion "Significant coverage". The article itself does not contain any such source, either. What gave me pause was that the article does say "it is the largest online directory in the world for surplus capital equipment", but that is referenced to Alexa Internet, which is not a reliable source for business evaluation. What they are reliable for, their statistics[1], show a traffic rank of 235,099, which does not support the claim of high notability for an online directory. — Sebastian 04:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I overlooked one source, a reference to the Chicago Sun-Times story about the company that said "The Surplus Record is known as the bible of the used and surplus capital equipment industry." Since ChildofMidnight expressed the wish for it to be userfied, I will do that instead. — Sebastian 05:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surplus Record Machinery & Equipment Directory[edit]

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

Random catalogue; fails WP:N. I like the inclusion of Category:United States, and the assumption that Thomas P. Scanlan will be 89 forever—nice touches. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Definitely notable [2] ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Look again, please. The hits for "Surplus Record Machinery & Equipment Directory" stop after about page 2, and most of those are obituaries for Scanlan. I don't see the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The company has a very long history, and both it and its founder are notable. This article covers both. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can say to each other "it's notable!" or "it's not notable!" ad nauseam; the test of that is WP:GNG: has the directory "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? No, not really. This fairly weak treatment is as close as I can find to coverage at any depth beyond trivial, but if the directory were actually that notable, there'd be far more available about an 80-odd year-old company. There isn't, and that leads me to believe we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very first article (and there are many listed) on Google News is very substantial coverage entirely about this subject (1280 words). It says:

"Tom Scanlan recalls shaking his head at a revolving door of well-educated, inexperienced hot shots who've offered to make a strategic alliance with his 77-year-old surplus capital equipment publishing company.

The visits started in May 1999, one month after Scanlan's Chicago-based company, the Surplus Record, started its own online auction.

The Surplus Record is known as the bible of the used and surplus capital equipment industry. Its 832-page November issue..." ref: SANDRA GUY Date: November 16, 2000 Publication: Chicago Sun-Times Page: 6

The subject of this article is very notable and there's plenty of coverage. It's not a close call. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks notable enough. Composition errors do not warrant deletion. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I say that? "Fails WP:N" sounds like a policy-based deletion rationale to me. Oh, sure, I added a humorous aside, which you're free to ignore, but the actual rationale was that the thing fails WP:N. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I said it "looks notable enough" to keep. I merely meant that your comment was arbitrary and incites predilection. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I reserve the right to direct gentle mockery at the edits of promotional single-purpose accounts. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes it does fail WP:N, by a country mile. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

- Ret.Prof (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Care to point out more specific instances of significant coverage? I see only passing mentions, advertisements and the like. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:11, 30 November 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.