Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scalfaro

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. Grandmasterka 04:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scalfaro

Obvious advert for a company that fails WP:CORP pretty badly. The google search is a bit misleading because of someone called Oscar Luigi Scalfaro (redirect to that page should be the solution) but the search for "scalfaro + luxury" turns up 332 unique ghits. Their watch business is a bit better known but I still feel that this is too marginal for inclusion. Of course, if there is no consensus for deletion, major editing will be needed to restore NPOV status to the article. Pascal.Tesson 00:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete corporate vanity artcle. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- An obvious ad does not belong in an encyclopedia. Mikeeilbacher 01:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:CORP shows a strong bias toward Ultra-First World companies. This article is lopsided and should be marked for improvement, but should be retained. That Encyclopedia Britannica would not have an article on it is hardly a problem; Wikipedia, in spite of what some folks appear to think, is a relational database and can keep this type of material, if improved. Pull weeds—nurture shoots. Williamborg 01:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, whether or not you agree with WP:CORP does not change the fact that it reflect consensus and is the accepted guideline by which we have chosen to include on Wikipedia. Note that one concern which makes the need for a slightly overprotective WP:CORP is that Wikipedia could easily be invaded by advertisement such as this one. In any case, if you disagree with WP:CORP then please discuss it in there but please don't make your point by experimenting on this debate. Pascal.Tesson

Appreciate your wise counsel. It is already under discussion there. Thanks - Williamborg 02:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pascal, I really don't think that Williamborg is being *disruptive* to make a point. The purpose of AfD is to discuss deletion and the rationales behind our points of view. He's doing just that. Please assume that Williamborg issued his keep in good faith, especially on an AfD that you initiated. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 05:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this weed As failing WP:SPAM. The problem with the article lies with those who consider Wikipedia to be free ad space. It is not, and editors who think otherwise should look elsewhere to peddle their wares. The article is an advertisement, nothing more, and as such should be destroyed as a warning to others who would misuse Wikipedia in such a manner. --DarkAudit 02:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Pure advertising, with what looks exactly like the company's brochure dumped on us. Geogre 02:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete:sheer vanity--Musaabdulrashid 02:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanispamcruftisement. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per WP:CORP, and WP:SPAM. Disclaimer: I have close personal friends which work in the watch industry and if they made an article like this, I would still vote for support its deletion. — MrDolomite | Talk 03:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. -- Gogo Dodo 04:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Ad. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 05:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - spam -- Whpq 13:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Advert. rootology 06:14, 29 July 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.