Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advertising by Westpac

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 Gnangarra 01:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising by Westpac

Advertising by Westpac (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Nothing notable about the advertising campaign of a bank MrMonroe 03:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete; very few advertising campaigns have the notability to warrant inclusion in WP --Mhking 03:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Westpac. Not notable enough to merit a seperate article.--TBCΦtalk? 03:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment by author of article about nomination If you check out MrMonroe's edit history, you'll notice that it is dominated by only a few articles. In fact, he's only made edits to do with Andrew Bolt for the past month, apart from this nomination. I suspect it is not coincidence that he's nominated an article by someone who has disagreed with him about the Andrew Bolt article. Andjam 03:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Please assume good faith when encountering possible bad faith. Also, please avoid "biting" newcomers.--TBCΦtalk? 03:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment MrMonroe is not a newbie, and his interactions with others (eg this) suggest that I'm not jumping to conclusions about bad faith. Andjam 04:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You're making a fallacious ad hominem argument here. Even if what you say is true, the AfD nomination is valid. Stebbins 03:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      • No, I'm making a valid ad hominem argument. But I've seperated the issue of whether the article should be deleted from whether the AfD was done in good faith. Andjam 04:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
        • You shouldn't be making any ad hominem argument. Concentrate on the issue at hand (ie the notability of the article) and not on the past disputes of the nominator. --TBCΦtalk? 04:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment by author of article about the article It was written while I was working on Australia at the Winter Olympics, which is a featured article. Andjam 03:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You can't claim notability vicariously. Stebbins 03:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It was more of a note than a vote, but why can't I claim notability vicariously? Andjam 04:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Just because one article is notable does not mean that all related articles are notable. The featured status of Australia at the Winter Olympics is irrelevant to this AfD discussion.Stebbins 04:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Makes no claim to notability. If it did, I may be tempted to vote for a merge, per TBC. Stebbins 03:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete--cj | talk 04:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Response from nominee: Andjam is suffering a serious case of paranoia. I nominated the article for deletion because of the reasons I mentioned above. I encountered it only as a tail-end reference on the Westpac page. I had no idea who created it and I didn't examine its history. If Andjam says I have disagreed with him/her at the Andrew Bolt page, I'll accept that without bothering to look. I certainly don't pursue pages created by Wiki users with whom I've had differences of opinion with the aim of having them deleted. Regardless, my nomination for deletion of this article stands for the reasons I gave. MrMonroe 04:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 04:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, the possible shady motivations of the nominator aside, this summary of a whole bunch of non-notable advertising campaigns is itself, not notable. Lankiveil 06:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete as adcruft. There really isn't anything useful or encyclopaedic on this page. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 07:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete ...maelgwntalk 12:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel that the "how did they do it?" ad campaign was one of the most notable Olympics-related advertising in Australia to do with the 2000 Olympics (and 2002). However, I don't have any sources to back up this claim. And maybe even if it is true, it isn't enough to establish notability. Andjam 13:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Which is exactly why it's up for deletion. Might want to find an article to merge it to, or stick it in your userspace someplace. --Dennisthe2 18:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Interesting, but not really that notable - and "interesting" isn't a valid reason to keep, otherwise we'd have an article on OCTA's route 1 bus, because it's numbered thusly for the highway it runs on. But I ramble. Delete. --Dennisthe2 18:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- not encyclopedic. - Longhair\talk 21:06, 15 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.