Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broad Street Licensing Group

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. 1ne 06:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broad Street Licensing Group

Not Notable, advertising, WP:AUTO. Less than 1000 ghits. Probably notable in their industry, but it is a small industry.--Brianyoumans 06:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I think that in this case "Probably notable in their industry" should translate to "Notable". TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - Very little salvagable here, nothing that couldn't be found on their website when someone wants to rewrite. --Daniel Olsen 07:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete without prejudice. Agree with Daniel Olsen: this reads like an advertisement, and vapidly calls the firm (o)ne of the most-innovative of the firms in its industry without mentioning any innovations. Smerdis of Tlön 13:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete with a sentance like (o)ne of the most-innovative of the firms, it fails WP:NPOV. Article also fails WP:V, and so fails WP:OR in kind. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 14:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Clear advertising and only 53 unique hits on Google. Prolog 16:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Articles reeks of WP:SPAM, and lacks citations to any reliable sources that would allow it to satisfy WP:CORP.-- danntm ^T _C 22:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Taking a very general marketing concept and applying it to a very narrow business segment isn't all that special or innovative. This is an obvious advert for the company, and should be deleted per WP:SPAM. Ohconfucius 07:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.This is looking like a cause by a disgruntled anti-capitalist. This industry may not be well-known, but it generates over $80 billion in sales in the US alone. This is ivory tower condescension, especially since the one proposing the deletion has felt the need to return and justify his stance. If it's not self-evident the item should be deleted, then it seems he has not made his case. Additionally, changes have been made to bring the article more into Wikipedia standards. And as to "ghits," I thought Wikipedia was about sharing information, not popularity? W. S. Cross 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note:W. S. Cross is the author of the article. --Brianyoumans 10:56, 20 August 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.