Talk:Bedder 6

Speedy deletion challenge
"Blatant advertising: It does nothing but promote some entity and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic." - I disagree. The article is completely factual and sourced from multiple major independent news outlets. Advertisements articles are "designed to promote a company or individual" - at present, this article deals entirely in facts and figures, with no positive or negative tone. No peacock terms/PR language. Note WP:SPAM which states "However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." This article is (in my opinion) of the latter variety, and if it is deemed necessary should go through the full regular deletion process, before a decision is made on whether to keep it. Finally, just to note: I have no connection with Bedder 6, BBC Worldwide or any other connected organization. AlexJ (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like advertising disguised under a different set of words. Re-flagging. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what you think, another editor (other than myself) believes the article is not spam, and therefore "reasonable doubt exists", meaning discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead, if necessary.


 * Can you also point out where you think advertising is occurring. Bedder's product is Top Gear, so if advertising was occurring, it would be at that page surely. This page just lists business related activities of the company. AlexJ (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Top Gear is a television program, not a product (sold). Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Top Gear is a product, as it is sold to other broadcasters worldwide (f.e. SBS in Australia, Discovery Channel in Canada) - Bedder 6 is the company who makes money from these international sales. AlexJ (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(indent) For the third time Tohd8BohaithuGh1 has requested speedy deletion of this page, when others have determined it does not meet the criteria for a speedy deletion. I believe these edits are starting to border on being disruptive, as more than one editor believes this not to be a case for a speedy, and would be grateful if someone could check against the criteria again and remove the speedy if it's not valid. Thanks, AlexJ (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with AlexJ, this seems to be a genuine entry about a specific company, albeit a company that exists to promote a single brand. --Lost tourist (Talk) 18:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)