Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bus Tickets Zambia


 * 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. North America1000 02:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Bus Tickets Zambia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I've also just nominated here the article on the parent  company  and the proprietor--all written by the same editor. The three articles have extensively overlapping content, and rely primarily on PR.  DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, as with the other 2, they fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP, and are also promotional. So you can buy bus tickets online- big deal, doesn't make them notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Non notable ticketing service. Safiel (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * comment Hold on with the delete..I guess a major issue here is that "Joseph2302" discovered that I created the article as a non-disclosed paid wiki writer. He has even nominated same article for Speedy deletion. I have already responded sincerely to him here. Editors please read my story here "[|ARE YOU BEING PAID TO CREATE ARTICLES]"  before arriving at the conclusionHilumeoka2000 (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * comment. Notice to all editors here! Joseph2302 the AFD nominator is taking this issue personal. He has nominated this same article for speedy deletion on the grounds of "undisclosed paid editing". He has really made me cry for the past 24 hours. I don't know why he's attacking all the pages I created so far. He nominated all of them for speedy deletion and then for AFD. There must be vested interest in his mind. I've already alerted Admins about this issue via the appropriate means. Thanks Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hilumeoka2000, not disclosing paid editing is a very, very serious thing on Wikipedia. People can still edit with a COI like paid editing, but you need to be up front about this. Also, DGG (the one who actually nominated the articles) is a good editor and one that is extremely unlikely to nominate a page purely because someone is a paid editor. He will mention it if it is relevant but when he nominates articles it is almost always because there is an issue with notability and in some cases, promotional prose. I would like to politely request that you refrain from making statements like this because they are not going to help you out with editing on Wikipedia. You broke the rules by not disclosing your conflict of interest and when you were caught, you proceeded to accuse other editors of doing this out of spite or some other conflict of interest. That's not only assuming bad faith, it's also considered to be an attack against the editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As says, it is not currently a reason for speedy deletion that an article was written by an undeclared paid editor.  It is not a specific reason for  deletion at AfD, but we can delete at AfD any article that the consensus determines is unfit for Wikipedia. To avoid confusion, I avoid giving paid editing as the sole reason, and usually I do not even mention it, just as I did not mention it here. I do not need to.  We certainly can and will  delete an article  about a non-notable subject, or a promotional article regardless of subject, and almost all articles written by undeclared paid editors fail on both grounds, along with a good many of those written by declared paid editors. For reasons given at WP:COI, it is extremely difficult to write proper WP articles for pay, though a few people have been able to learn how. It's a specialized form of writing, and people used to writing press releases or the like cannot easily re-orient themselves.  If an editor writes a few unacceptable articles, we naturally check others they have written. Each one will be judged on its individual merits.
 * It is not permitted to use WP for purposes of advertising, paid or unpaid, and anyone who persists in doing so will be blocked from contributing in avoid to avoid further improper contributions. Once they are blocked, anything further they write under any username will be immediately deleted. For completeness, I make a reference here to our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to  paid contributions without disclosure. You have now been given a short block by Tokyogirl for abuse of editing privileges. If you write another promotional article, declared or undeclared, you are very likely to be blocked indefinitely. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Hey, I have a "vested interest" too: it's in pitching NN articles that fail the GNG. This one does, and I sure as hell wouldn't have the balls to complain about anyone else's "vested interest" when I've been paid to write articles.  Nha Trang  Allons! 16:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Definitely non-notable. BMK (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2015 (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.