Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1.800.Vending/2005 Archive


 * 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. This takes into account the fact that two delete votes were cast after the vote was closed, who were made by users who have only made a small number of edits to closely-related subjects. Discounting those two votes still does not afford a consensus. Mo0 [ talk ] 23:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

1.800.Vending
Advertising. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 23:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and carefully restore any NPOV verifiable information from the page's history, and fill in data from other sources. The company likely meets the requirements of WP:CORP, but we should not allow this to become a platform to attack (or defend) its actions and officers. Owen&times; &#9742;  23:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - currently virtually empty; previously appeared to be a vandalism target. It might be best to scrape clean and start again. B.Wind 03:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - I think the reason this page was locked for "vandalism" reasons is so that no one would mark the article for deletion and would have to jump through loops as we are doing now. There is nothing in this article that meets the requirements of WP:CORP.  If there were, there would be more information on the company instead of just "here's our phone number if you are interested in our product."  This is advertising, pure and simple.  Also, while I appreciate OwenX's view, he's on the history trying to defend the company for some alleged violations of the law.  Respectfully, he may be slightly biased.--Mayur 17:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Your accusation that I am biased is baseless and rude. Reverting blanking by a persistent vandal last month is not "trying to defend the company for some alleged violations of the law". Since you have only joined Wikipedia two days ago, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not familiar with WP:ATTACK and WP:CIVIL, but be aware that comments such as the above are not tolerated here. Also, take a look at WP:CSD before you throw big words like "Speedy Delete" around. Owen&times; &#9742;  18:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My apologies to OwenX, my comments were not intended to be attacks nor were they meant to be rude. If my comments were intended as such, they would not have been proceeded with "respectfully"... --Mayur 16:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn advertising. — ceejayoz talk [[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|24px]] 19:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. The original version was not advertising (although Jeff Marsh may have attempted to change it to such) Captain Zyrain 05:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * see: (old version) bogdan 14:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - yes, this page certainly reads like advertising, but I think it might be worthwhile to keep provided we do two things: 1) Put an NPOV tag at the top of the page, and 2) I can see that the article can be improved to discuss the role of passive vending machines - these in fact do make quite a bit of profit, and might be worth exploring whether this particular company played any role in the history of its development. If there is no significant improvement to the article content over the next few months, we can nominate to delete it again - if necessary. --HappyCamper 01:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and cleanup-rewrite. Stifle 02:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; seems to have some fame/notoriety. But we must all make sure the article adheres strictly to NPOV, and is neither an ad for the company nor an attack on it. *Dan T.* 16:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; the article contains false and misleading information on this company. Jimbo Wales deleted most of the article due to this fact but the false information has reappeared. Copyrighted information is also included without permission of the author.*Jeffm* 18:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * User's fourth edit. Owen&times; &#9742;  22:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * One should note that there's no such thing as "copyrighted information"; purely factual information is uncopyrightable. The specific wording of how information is presented may be copyrighted, however. *Dan T.* 21:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not meet the requirements of WP:CORP. Alaska1050 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * User's ninth edit; all previous edits are to the article (or related pages). Owen&times; &#9742;  22:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - Alaska1050 and Jeffm have both made only edits to 1.800.Vending and closely-related articles. Are they separate users?--SarekOfVulcan 22:25, 28 December 2005 (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.