Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adbusters

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 wasSpeedy keep as per WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adbusters

Adbusters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Blatant advertising page for Adbusters organization, distinct lack of reliable sourcing beyond local newspapers and sources directly related to the organization. Most of the article is sourced only from the organizations website rather than what is required by our policies. Article has existed since 2003 so there has been plenty of time to establish the notability and find these sources. I attempted to suggest that those watching the page clean it up by leaving appropriate tags, but these have been removed by an anon editor. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Strongest Possible Keep I'm having trouble assuming good faith here. The article does need improving (I'll get to work), but to suggest deletion is ridiculous. faithless (speak) 08:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious speedy keep Secretlondon (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a policy reason for this, or is it a "ILIKEIT" speedy keep request? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, a very obviously notable organization with (for example) over 700 hits just on the New York Times website. AFD is not for content disputes; please use WP:DR processes instead. Edit warring with an anon and AFD are not your only choices here. --Dhartung | Talk 09:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There are plenty of mainstream media articles on Adbusters, such as this one [1] from the New York Times and this one [2] from the Guardian. Nick mallory (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The references section in the article provides sufficient reliable sources to prove its notability -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 09:28, 20 November 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.