Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arch Coal

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 speedy keep, per Wikipedia:Speedy keep, too soon since last nomination of article for deletion. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arch Coal

Arch Coal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non Notable, Poorly written tripe, VanityLady Nemisis 04:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong and speediest keep. This is a Fortune 500 company. Nominator registered yesterday and her userpage advertises that she will write articles on order for cash; the MyWikiBiz precedent establishes that for such an account to nominate business articles for deletion is a serious conflict of interest.

I see on further checking (I knew I remembered this article from somewhere) that this was the article that brought the MyWikiBiz situation to a head. Recommend strong keep as per above but also a rewrite. Newyorkbrad 04:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Procedural Keep due to Deletion Review endorsing this article (or a version of it) in October 2006. Too soon for renomination for afd. I don't fault the nominator as the deletion review is difficult to find (I still can't find it) and is not noted in the talk page. See article log for the DRV references. Original article was speedy deleted by User:Jimbo as corporate spam, but this decision was overturned in DRV. THe article seems to meet WP:CORP - but potential nominators should wait atleast another month or two before nominating to afd. Bwithh 04:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Followup comment This particular nominator should not nominate this article at all - appears to be a commercial conflict of interest here, as pointed out by Newyorkbrad. Is there a policy yet against commercial exploitation of Wikipedia by user editing, or has that still not been settled? Bwithh 05:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Very Speedy Keep - Just by being a Fortune 500 company automatically qualifies it under WP:CORP. And what's with a spammer nominating AfDs? --Oakshade 04:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Jimbo Wales speedy deleted an earlier version of this article (which was not that different from this one) for being corporate spam, and he didn't think being a Fortune 500 company overruled the spam concern in the discussion that followed, as I recall. A spammer might nominate articles to create business for themselves, or to undermine rivals Bwithh 05:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, okay. Still speedy keep due to it being a Fortune 500 component. --Oakshade 05:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the history. It looks very different then the one at the start. I say keep it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArmAndLeg (talk • contribs) .

keep Ignoring all ad hominem arguements to this point, the company is a Fortune 500 company, which is a specific and narrowly defined exception to standard notability rules under WP:CORP. Even beyond this, the company is the subject of multiple, non-trivial, third party references, and the article is well referenced. The subject thus meets the Primary Notability Criteria even ignoring its Fortune 500 status. I see no problems at all with the article as written. --Jayron32 05:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like a speedy keep to me, with a whiff of bad faith nom, or at the least WP:POINT. Grutness...wha? 05:34, 23 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.