Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PUATraining.com

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 Viridae^Talk 20:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PUATraining.com

PUATraining.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This has been speedy deleted twice as spam. Kidtonio (talk · contribs) (the article's creator) is questioning this decision on my user talk. I have restored the article to bring here to reach a community consensus on it as Kidtonio brings up some points that should probably be examined by more than just me. Metros232 18:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Delete per nom. Clearly a non-notable company, as seen by extremely low traffic, and no third party publications whatsoever exept details in a web directory[1]. Doesn't pass WP:CORP. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm changing my vote to delete because of the Daily Star publication, but it is still a tabloid newspaper per Demiurge, and doesn't show real assertion of notability. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Assuming good faith on the FHM citation, it does have two non-trivial external references, so it passes that test. However there are a number of shortcomings with the references — the Daily Star article does not confirm most of the details asserted in the article (is the "SYSTEM" one year old, or two years?). Also the Star is not a very high-quality source — it's a tabloid newspaper which focuses on celebrities and gossip (note this part of WP:CORP: "newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary." — I believe the Star article violates the spirit if not the letter of that rule). Combined with the WP:COI violation, I'm saying delete. Demiurge 18:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the research of Demiurge. Eusebeus 01:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - it's pink, it comes in blue tins and it's made from pigs. Pete Fenelon 02:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Self-admitted WP:COI --RoninBK_ETC 09:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Low traffic due to the fact the site has been running only for a few months and does not rely on a hig hit ratio due to the nature of the Seduction Community and the way we do business- REMEMBER I am not creating this Wiki as an advertising tool so hits on this article are not at the heart of my intentions and I don't see why it should matter if our website has many hits as to whether our Wiki deserves to stay and not be deleted. The SYSTEM has been developed over 2 years since it is the brain child of more than the 1 person cited in the Daily Star article, who have spent varying amounts of time in the Community putting it to work. The newspaper story credits a reporter by the name of Phil Boucher. Kidtonio 03:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The Daily Star article is one long quotation, from beginning to end, of a statement made by the founder of the company. It's a simple re-print of an autobiography, exactly what WP:CORP excludes. Moreover, it says nothing at all about the company, the web site, or the system. Uncle G 16:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sure looks like advertising to me. I'm joining the queue to spank Kidtonio for his naughtiness. WMMartin 17:48, 29 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.