Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bedeutung


 * 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   keep. After 13 days of discussion, there's a consensus that the subject is notable and nobody besides the nominator is arguing for deletion. Any POV or COI issues can be dealt with through the normal editing process. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Bedeutung

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Bedeutung. Was speedied previously as Blatant advertising.
 * Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam

Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote bedeutung.co.uk Hu12 (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep Judging from the contributors and the Guardian ref, it is vanishingly unlikely that this topic fails to meet our notability guidelines. I appreciate the concerns about editorial motivation and article content, but they are simply besides the point when it comes to non-speedy deletion. Skomorokh,  barbarian  00:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep WP:NOTABILITY: Bedeutung is a print quarterly magazine, published in Britain and distributed worldwide. WP:SPAM: This article does not read like SPAM. It's had enough contributors that even if there were WP:COI in creating the article, that the article now reads WP:NPOV free.  kgrr  talk 20:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * NPOV free...? Freudian slip, mate? ;o) --Whoosit (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It's still spammy. It lacks a variety of sources. But it seems to pass a bare minimum standard for notability. Let's see how it changes in the coming weeks & months... --Whoosit (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2009 (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.