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. Cirt (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goldline Research

[edit]

Not seeing the references to back this up as notable - in fact, they seem to charge for inclusion in their "best of" lists. http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/2008/05/22/seo-firms-beware-goldline-research/ SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If they are notorious enough for a reference criticizing their business methods, wouldn't that make them notable? Groomtech (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly -- but I wouldn't accept the link I included above as a Reliable Source.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The source indicated http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/2008/05/22/seo-firms-beware-goldline-research/ makes claims that are not based in fact. IMO Not reliable as reason to delete. This page is simply mentioning the neutral facts about what Goldline Research is and what it has actually and verifiably published. FYI, Goldline Research does not publish "Top 10" or "Best of" lists. Refer to actual published pages in Forbes and other publications to confirm.KrugerK (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additionally in regards to charging for services, it is my understanding that there is more than what is on the surface in regards to their business model. Best to verify with actual business before conclusions are drawn from singular and possibly antagonistic source. And regardless of business model, the fact that the company does exist and does publish in various magazines is verifiable and worthy of mention as a company, albeit a stub at this point. There is potential for growth to something on the scale of Forbes' own Wiki, in time. Thanks!KrugerK (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The company does exist" and "There is potential for growth" are fairly-specifically called out as WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great reason why is should be tagged for notability rather than be deleted. KrugerK (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? I don't think you understand what was explained. Those are not valid reasons for keeping. Therefore it should be deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, referring to another thread.71.6.73.35 (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above is mine KrugerK (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing notability requirements. DreamGuy (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Why have a notability tag even available if the result of an article's not being "notable" is deletion? Given the sources cited, I believe it is notable.

Above is mineKrugerK (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still have not had anyone chime in with respects to my question. KrugerK (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Information: Goldline Research provides a service to the consumer base (at no cost whatsoever) which consumers that have taken advantage of the information have said is very valuable and helpful. As far as notability goes, you will see that in the physical pages of one of the most notable publications that they produce their work in (Forbes) does not require that their page be produced in the "Marketplace" section of the magazine, nor is it marked as advertising. FYI, Goldline Research has made no visible or known claim that they are the magazine or that they are writing an editorial. This I feel are additional reasons to keep the page and simply tag it for notability.KrugerK (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Come On Now Altering other user submissions to Talk Page (without signing, no less!) is just bad form and poor Netiquette. Please be civil and polite. KrugerK (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You only get to not-vote once. Striking second !vote again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Altering referenced section. Thanks for signing your entry and giving explanation. KrugerK (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The only secondary source ([1]) appears to just be a list of links with templated descriptions - and despite what it might say, it smells like an ad to me. The article itself is nothing more than the first paragraph stub and links to the company's websites (+ the forbescustom link) - the lists of published research don't belong in wikipedia. Keep in mind also that just because "Goldline Research publishes lists of professionals in Forbes, Fortune, Inc. and Texas Monthly as well as city and regional magazines." doesn't make it notable - what matters is if those publications write about Goldline Research itself. --bd_ (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to know why you believe the lists of published research don't belong, would be willing to remove if would improve chances of retention. This page was created not for advertising purposes, but to facilitate the dissemination of neutral information to the public to further inform them about Goldline Research, as there are those out there who want all the information they can get. If the page were brought back to the first paragraph and included the external links, would that make retaining the page and tagging it with notability something that might be possible? KrugerK (talk) 15:08, 28 May 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.