Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Industry Nine
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 delete. Majorly (o rly?) 21:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Industry Nine
This article is blatant free advertising for a private business enterprise. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia--not an online "yellow pages." If allowed to stand, this article opens up the door for free advertising touting the product line of all private business enterprises. It constitutes a gross abuse of Wikipedia. Gregory Watson
- Delete. The AfD nomination was not complete, so I completed it. I comfortably agree with the nominator's standpoint. Sr13 (T|C) Editor review 07:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. Travelbird 08:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete spam advertising. Wooyi 20:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Creator Comment I don't why this article qualifies for AFD. There are over 160 pages about cycling manufacturers many smaller than Industry Nine. It has been reported on in independant reliable sources, including the most recent Dirt Rag and fairly recently in Mountain Bike Magazine. It is a large brand sold in hundreds of stores. I can see that it will need work to be a good article, and that's why its open to the public for merciless editing. I'll put in citations from those articles if the result is keep. Also, it's possibly worth noting that the nominator has (impropery) nominated almost every page i've created for AFD because I nominated an article of his that was deleted as neologism. Goodnightmush 03:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- weak delete unless notability is shown and sourced. Can you find outside sources, such as product reviews to show the the product is considered N in its specialty? DGG 08:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll add several of the independent sources before the debate ends. Just need to get them together. Might be a day. Goodnightmush 18:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sources. I've added sources in the external links section of the article showing the notability of the company. For instance: Review at Dirt Rag Goodnightmush 02:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless multiple reliable sources confirming the claims of notability are provided per WP:V. Nuttah68 13:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling#Case study in constructive dispute resolution for an earlier dispute about a cycling-related page. We resolved that dispute by trans-wiki'ing the unencyclopedic portions of Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais to Bicycling Wiki. --Teratornis 20:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Very poorly sourced - we can't turn WikiPedia into a PR agency NBeale 10:57, 2 March 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.
