Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moosejaw

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 Speedily deleted per WP:CSD G-11, advertising; then redirected to Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan per discussion. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moosejaw

Moosejaw (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

violates WP:SPAM (advertising), NN business, solely an advertising page SkierRMH 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete (CSD G11) -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 01:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom - speedy delete per WP:SNOW amongst others. - wtfunkymonkey 01:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant advertising. And the first line of the article is a hypothetical question about the its own validity! Wavy G 02:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Replace with redirect to Moose Jaw, a notable city whose name often gets misspelled. --Charlene 02:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. Seams like a probable misspelling of the city and I am confident that someone typing this is more likely looking for the city. Finally it should not redirect simply to Moose Jaw because that would be a double redirect.--67.71.77.44 02:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Right you are about the redirect. --Charlene 03:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per above or Wikify. ~ PHDrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 02:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, then redirect per above. MER-C 03:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Moose Jaw and, obviously, speedy the current article content as non-notable spam. (In other words, I guess I'm asking for a speedy, protected redirect.) -- Kicking222 03:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe Keep?/Comment I agree about redirecting. The talk page on the Moosejaw page states that they have been featured in various notable publications. I went from their offical website to articles featured in the New York Times, Outdoor, etc. There are valid articles discussing the business. I figure if the page was made to seem less "spammy" and more wiki, perhaps it'd be keepable? They have earned notability. Missvain 03:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Very outlandish claims. If true, well, so be it, but I think some actual citation of sources will be in order. Wavy G 07:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and later redirect to Moose Jaw. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 07:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as advertising (possible G11) Amists ^{talk • contribs} 11:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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.