Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caretaker Gazette (second nomination)

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 delete.--cj | talk 16:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caretaker Gazette

Caretaker Gazette (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Caretaker Gazette was nominated for deletion on 2005-03-22. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caretaker Gazette.

This is advertising, as defined under the spam guidelines, and most certainly in violation of wp:coi. The sole author, at ip address 64.185.177.210, has previously identified himself by name, and appears to be the editor of the Caretaker Gazette. The Gazette is itself an advertising publication. Trishm 02:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - A major cleanup has been completed on 2007-02-04. It is not advertising, and if User:Trishm thinks this is advertising, then Wikipedia needs to delete TIME, NEWSWEEK, MOTHER EARTH NEWS, and all the other publication descriptions contained in Wikipedia, which have the same information as is contained here.

• Delete per nom Josh Parris 04:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Edeans 05:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 10:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, it does claim notability and it does get many thousands of ghits. Perhaps it can be made into something worthwhile, either way I'm not going to vote for delete (but neither do I feel strongly enough for it to vote keep...). Mathmo ^Talk 12:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete requires major cleanup at a minimum _SUBWAYguy 06:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete on the basis on no third party sources of any sort, and I doubt they are likely. DGG 23:52, 4 February 2007 (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.