Talk:Aplus.Net
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article has had a somewhat substantial deletion history, and was recently tagged for speedy deletion as WP:CSD#G5. However, despite the dubious origin of this article (and this very troubling blog post on the company's blog), I believe that the article is not an advertisement masquerading as an article, and is sufficiently neutral and notable for an article. Major concerns in the previous AFD were neutrality. A relevant quote from the 2nd AFD debate, "While maybe someone will start a legitimate article on this eventually, this isn't it." Sources added to the article since the last deletion include [1], [2], and [3]. These seem to be enough to establish notability, as non-trivial relatively in-depth coverage of the company being noted. If the admin reviewer of this disagrees, I could make a create a procedural AFD nomination. (Or if the article is simply deleted, I won't lose too much sleep.) GracenotesT § 02:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- groan possibly a COI as well. COI is more behavioral than content-related (last time I checked, anyway), but another factor to consider. GracenotesT § 02:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Look, this article has already been deleted twice, the article has clearly been created by somebody with large WP:COI, and the wikipedia has suffered at the hands of this individual before (excessive wikilinking- even this time the categories it is in are basically spammed and unconnected with the article); and the deletion reviews involved sock puppetry. The person adding this, also added a vanity page over at Gabriel Murphy, which probably will not survive deletion review either. This company is not really notable. If it was notable, somebody not associated with the company would have created it (and the page wouldn't be a carbon copy of the last time it was created.)WolfKeeper 02:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's also WP:SPAM, the article is intended to be advertising for the company. Given the prior history, the COI the sockpuppetry etc. I don't see any reason to let it stay. Another way to look at it, what does the wikipedia gain from having it here? Nothing, nothing at all.WolfKeeper 02:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
