Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PLNet

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 speedy delete as G11. Another admin may have considered this a slight borderline case. I decided to delete because upon reading through, really, the entire tone of the article was quite promotional and meant solely for that purpose; and given that there was also no evidence of notability through Google searches (per comments in this AfD), the topic itself was not worth retrieving. For the record, if there was potential notability, I would likely have stubified/rewritten the article. JamieS93 04:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLNet

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

Overtly promotional entry about an organisation (bordering on CSD G12) operating within one Canadian province - clearly failing the inclusion guideline for organisations that requires (for non-profits) "[t]he scope of their activities is national or international in scale." I can find no in-depth coverage of the organisation online, most ghits don't refer to this organisation at all: the subject fails the general notability guideline too. The article has no references, merely links to their website, followed by the telephone number of the director (who is the editor who created the article, a clear conflict of interest and the reason for the article's promotional nature) and a "helpdesk" number. – Toon 14:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The organization is government-run and only operates inside British Columbia. It has received no significant, independent coverage outside its own province, as evidenced by a Google News search and a Google web search. Tim meh (review me) 19:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged. The article is entirely promotional in nature, and only intended to promote this agency. I have to admit, this is the first time I've seen government spam. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:52, 2 October 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.