Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Things accordion


 * 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 delete per VfD. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

All Things accordion
Advertising for a music shop
 * Delete Gazpacho 01:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- JJay 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete But the nomination reason is wrong: advertising may be neutered by a non-lazy wikipedian. The real reason is that it is nonnotable. mikka (t) 01:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is advertising, which makes it suitable for an AfD. Also, non-notable.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  06:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Advertising is one of the criteria in the deletion policy, while, as the Schoolwatch people will repeat ad nauseam, "notability is not."  It's always great when industrious AfD readers rescue articles by neutering the advertising, but an ad is a deletion candidate, and no one's going to be industrious with a minor shop's ad.  Geogre 19:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence is exactly my point: advertising alone is not a reason for deletion. Also, schoolwatch position is not "notability is not", but "all schools are notable". mikka (t) 21:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * copyvio --Rob 20:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd rather guess it is not a copyvio, but a self-promotion. Who else would want to vio this copy? mikka (t) 21:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you're partly right, the text probably came from somebody with the company, but that's meaningless. A typical promotional photo is released to the public to promote a person, yet we can only use it with fair use, and could never use it as GFDL.  Releasing something for promotion doesn't mean its usable by Wikipedia (often explicit permission to use on Wikipedia, isn't even good enough).  Now, if the copyright holder is a private individual, and that specific individual copyied the text, then that would not be a copyvio (as the upload would constitute licensing under GFDL).  But we can't guesse if the uploader is the legal copyright holder (their employee/agent might not be authorized to donate corporate property). --Rob 04:41, 16 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.