Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veritasacademy

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. - Mailer Diablo 09:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Veritasacademy

An obvious spam article, and a duplicated one at that Blood red sandman 16:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not spam it's a website and it's notable. Why shouldn't it be noted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayan666 (talk • contribs) } - article author

Delete - In what ways is it notable? --Onorem 16:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment What are the duplications? --Wafulz

- Veritasacademy, Veritas academy & VeritasAcademy --Onorem 17:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's got a large and close knit memberbase and covers many styles and therefore notable for them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayan666 (talk • contribs)

• Comment Unfortunately, there are higher standards of notability, particularly for websites. You can check out commonly used criteria at WP:WEB. Also, sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~)--Wafulz 17:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject does not meet criteria for WP:V or WP:WEB --Wafulz 17:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It is intending to publish books in the near future. It would be wise to let it stay until that panns out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayan666 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment There is a fairly strict policy against things like this. Namely, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Basically, a subject has to achieve notability first, then it merits an article. There's no academic advantage to having a placeholder for a potential article. --Wafulz 18:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Is not notable. Yes, it might become notable in the future, at which time we can make an article about it. Heimstern Läufer 18:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete delete. The author wrote the same article three times, possibly to avoid the spam network. Delete all. --Mecanismo | Talk 18:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete with the two other above, also, as spam. Karol 18:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Crystalballism. Danny Lilithborne 19:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as a crystal ball/spam - a case could be made to speedy this as vandalism, since the creator made duplicates in an attempt to avoid the spam guidelines. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 02:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes its very clear that the reason this article was created at multiple titles was a bad-faith attempt to avoid the "spam guidelines", and not because the creator wasn't aware that wikipedia uses redirects to cover alternate names. Kappa 23:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete all. Leuko 04:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all does not appear suitable for Wikipedia (notability). Cedars 12:31, 26 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.