Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Openad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Bduke (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Blatant advertising (already speedied as such as OpenAd) Mayalld (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Unsure why WP:CSD#G11 was declined. Obvious advertising. Similar article OpenAd was speedied yesterday under G11. --Breno talk 17:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article provides multiple reliable sources to establish notability, but does so in the references section, rather than inline. The article "On Advertising: A Web link between buyers and sellers of ideas" from the International Herald Tribune is a cardinal example of the independent, in-depth reliable and verifiable coverage that OpenAd has received and that has been ignored by our nominator. It's rather clear why WP:CSD#G11 was declined in this light. Any "advertising" issues should be properly addressed via editing, not via AfD. Alansohn (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Alansohn. Disclosure: It was me who declined the speedy deletion. The amount of work needed to bring the article up to standard was minimal, the facts are represented from a Neutral Point Of View, it is independently referenced from multiple reliable sources, and I believe all standards of notability have been established. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It does not read as blatant advertising to me, and I have seen plenty of that around here to know what it looks like. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — I redirected OpenAd to Openad as the author copypasted it there. --slakr\ talk / 09:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete With better phrasing, i think it can be substantially improved, yet the article, to my way of thinking , is simply about something that is not quite important, anyway, i think in its current form, it sounds like an ad.
Λua∫Wise (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. References per WP:V are established and that I think it is clear that there is notability, looking at the article. SorryGuy Talk 06:50, 13 January 2008 (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.