Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core77

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. And I hope Cunard will rewrite the article to incorporate the material that he located DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Core77

Core77 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-significant Blog. Coverage are nothing notable. Nothing to write except 1 paragraph. purpose is promotional and nothing else. Helps building links afterall we are blog! Wikipedia is used as corporate spam. Light2021 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Blogs are not reliable sources, even for themselves. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - I was just about to vote delete based on the thin article and poor outdated sourcing, but on a hunch went to their site. Seems very slick to call just a blog. Did a little more digging and found more coverage, and improved the article. Apparently this is a very notable digital publication in the design world, and many well known design schools are heavily involved in submitting work for Core77's Design Awards program - so it must be prestigious. I don't want to canvas and taint the already fragile AfD process, but I think others who focus on editing design articles could speak better to this site's notability. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's well-known then give the sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I added some coverage I found - it's there now. I think that since we're not (or at least I'm not) in the design industry, it might be useful to let editors who are in the design field chime in as well. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Gomez Palacio, Bryony; Vit, Armin (2012) [2009]. Graphic Design, Referenced: A Visual Guide to the Language, Applications, and History of Graphic Design. Beverly, Massachusetts: Rockport Publishers. p. 114. ISBN 1592537421. Retrieved 2017-07-13.

     The book notes:

     In 1995, as students in the Industrial Design graduate program at Pratt Institute, Stuart Constantine and Eric Ludlum presented Core77 as their thesis: embracing the nascent medium of websites and interface design to consolidate information and resources about their future profession. From the outset, Core77 attracted a wide and loyal following that avidly contributed articles, resources, job openings, and more, and fueled its growth to become a de facto destination for industrial designers. Allan Chochinov joined in 2000 as a partner and has overseen the consistent development of Core77's editorial voice and community, including a popular blog, feature articles, special publications, and offline events. Found in its accompanying forums is the 1 Hour Design Challenge, where readers are invited to come up with concepts and sketches for things like cycling shoes or bettering the rainshower experience. Despite a focus on industrial designs, much of its content is relevant to any creative endeavor.

  2. Abrahamson, Shaun; Ryder, Peter; Unterberg, Bastian (2013). Crowdstorm: The Future of Innovation, Ideas, and Problem Solving. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 1118570383. Retrieved 2017-07-13.

     The book notes:

     Media partners have already aggregated communities of interest—groups of people who are thinking and talking about specific issues. For example, Core77 is a resource for the design community that covers industry-related news, such as award-winning designs and emerging thinking. They regularly discuss design challenges and introduce their community to contests. And they are a resource for designers in other ways, such as hosting their portfolios and connecting them with new job opportunities.

     But an organization like Core77 can do more than directly support recruiting. Their brand is well respected; therefore, an opportunity to have one's work featured in their selective news coverage is highly desirable. In this way, Core77 lends a hand in making good on the promise of attention. They have repeatedly demonstrated that they will promote the best designs from crowdstorming challenges; these selections represent the "content" that their community wants to see, while giving the winning designers the visibility and attention they desire.

     Core77 is just one specialty media partner. Nowadays, specialty communities cover everything from sustainable energy and resource management to data visualization. Having these media partners as part of a crowdstorming coalition can be essential to attracting the right participants.

  3. Heller, Steven; Womack, David (2008). Becoming a Digital Designer: A Guide to Careers in Web, Video, Broadcast, Game and Animation Design. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p. 237. ISBN 111803421X. Retrieved 2017-07-13.

     The book notes:

     The folks behind Core77 were industrial design students who decided that they needed an online forum where like minds could gather, debate, and share resources. They started Core77 in 1995 right out of school and have succeeded in building one of the leading design Web sites from the ground up. They had no funding beyond a small grant from the university, but they did have enthusiasm. Over time, what at first seemed like an obstacle—the fact that they didn't have the backing of an organization or company—has turned out to be a benefit. They've been able to develop a unique and independent voice while still managing to make a living.

  4. Skinner, Marjorie (2010-08-12). "Sold Out: Hand-Eye Supply". The Portland Mercury. Archived from the original on 2017-07-13. Retrieved 2017-07-13.

     The article notes:

     A new specialty boutique has joined Portland's ranks, but instead of curating lines of hard-to-find European scarves and toiletries, this venture focuses on the tools we need for making things. Founded by Core77, the longstanding online resource for industrial designers, Hand-Eye Supply offers what co-founder Eric Ludlum (with partners Stuart Constantine and Allan Chochinov) describes as an almost retro selection of supplies for making things with your hands rather than on a computer—everything from wrenches to pushpins to eye protection to sketchpads are available, although perhaps the most impressive category of their merchandise is the workwear department.

     ...

     The website was originally started in 1995 as a joint thesis for the Pratt Institute, with Constantine coming onboard around 2000, but the cheaper rents and fact that Ludlum says Portland "is a really good place to make things" won out. It's also no small coincidence that Ludlum's wife was pregnant when they made their permanent move last year.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Core77 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources found by Cunard, plus the work done on the article since opening the AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep due to coverage of sources found by Cunard. WikiVirusC^(talk) 02:29, 17 July 2017 (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.