Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adland

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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adland

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The blog doesn't meet the criterias on WP:WEB. The article on svwp was deleted for lacking notability. The article on dawp was moved out of ns-0, the article on svwp about the creator of Adland was deleted for lacking notability. The page has been created and maintained by users who are close to Adland (as can be seen on my SPI report). The same text and sources have been added by several new users over the three language versions and almost all of them are used incorrectly as can be seen after a small glance. The article has recently been deleted here on enwp. I suggest the article is deleted and then a creation protection is added. GameOn (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion or criteria? Either way, it would seem a shame to delete a reference to a site that I use to read about the advertising business, and which seems an authoritative source. Enteroform Enterform 09:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need sources that show that the site is notable. Users comming from the site and claiming that they read it are not helping the article from being deleted. GameOn (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2011 (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.