Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easygroup

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 of the debate was Keep Computerjoe's talk 07:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EasyGroup

Speedy Delete Ok where do we start, this article is 100% pure unadulterated SPAM and its sole purpose is to advertise one company belonging to one individual and provide backlinks to various websites controlled by that individual. From my understanding of WIKIPEDIA using an article to provide SEO for web pages and positive publicity is in breech of several of WIKIPEDIA's conditions and objectives. I recommend a deletion on a variety of grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politakis (talk • contribs)

  • STRONG Keep I'm sorry but the easyGroup is one of the most significant companies in the UK and western Europe today. Everyone knows of them and their subsidiary companies and they are perhaps single handedly responsible for an overhaul in how certain commercial sectors are run (mostly airlines, hotels and car rental). Ben W Bell talk 07:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Incidentally this has been nominated by a user who seems intent on removing all the easyGroup companies from Wikipedia and has tried to do so on several occassions of late. Ben W Bell talk 07:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment To clarify what's going on here, the user nominating this article tried adding links to etaxis.co.uk and eminicabs.co.uk to the article Minicab, and created EasyPizza which had a link to easypizza.co.uk. A simple examination of those pages show them to be all part of the same SEO machine. Going one link deep in on any of those websites reveals dozens of (often hidden) links to other websites, and these three sites link to each other. Because of my SEO suspicions, I nominated EasyPizza for deletion, not knowing that there was a legitimate easyPizza company run by easyGroup. During the AfD, other Wikipedians uncovered links to notable sources mentioning the real easyPizza, so I withdrew my AfD nom and fixed easyPizza to refer to the notable company. lowercase 07:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep it sure looks like a WP:POINT nom -- Samir धर्म 07:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Speedy kept yesterday and probably a bad faith nomination here again today. DarthVader 07:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep The owner is roughly the fourth most famous entrepreneur based in the UK (after Richard Branson, Alan Sugar and Roman Abramovich).Piccadilly 11:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)\
Surely fifth most famous, after you count Lakshmi Mittal Bwithh 20:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't Mittal is more famous in the UK. He is richer and more important on a global scale, but he's in a business that sells to other businesses, so it is of little interest to those who don't read the business pages. Stelios operates a high profile consumer brand and is familiar on TV. He has certainly been famous in the UK for longer. Abramovich is famous with the general public because he's associated with football, not because he made billions in oil and alunium; Sugar was also been involved in football and has his own TV show; and Branson is head and shoulders above all other British businessmen in fame because he's a marketing genius and has been involved in many consumer businesses. Steelmaking just doesn't interest the British general public much, especially when the plants are overseas. Piccadilly 06:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, easyGroup is certainly a notable company in the UK. Though it needs some bias work. - Motor (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - highly notable company in the UK. Timrollpickering 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Obviously notable company Ydam 13:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, obviously. --Guinnog 14:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, although the nominator has a point regarding the SPAM, the article is not unsalvageable. Peyna 19:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could withstand a neutralizing NPOV cleanup, but otherwise it appears to meet WP:CORP item 1. Crum375 20:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speed Keep / NPOV cleanup Major UK brand. Article seems satisfactorily NPOV already to me Bwithh 20:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and block the nominator for more than 24 hours for continued WP:POINT violations after a 24hr block. I think it does need some NPOV cleanup, though. Grandmasterka 04:48, 6 June 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.