Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Businessbib


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  16:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Businessbib
Blatant product promotion. Author rmvd my prod tag. Two sentences in NYT could be devoted to any kind of oddball product. Remember Sea Monkey ads? This is similar, but far more expensive. Also see Photoshopped picture in history of this "article." Ling.Nut 12:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)  Sorry for offending the rules of Wikipedia, but I have nothing to do with the company that creates the product and do not intend on advertising it.Head-doctor 12:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the article now passes the requirement for multiple nontrivial mentions, since a trivial mention is defined as something like a directory listing, and the New York Times article has a byline. Youtube is normally not a reliable source, but in this context it's evidence that something was mentioned on national television in the United States. I commented out the Channel 4 reference, but it can be restored if a more precise citation can be added. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Dictdef. Edeans 22:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a dictionary article about a word. It is an encyclopaedia article about a type of clothing. Uncle G 10:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This "article of clothing" will cease to exist in four months. Why burden Wikipedia with adcruft? --Ling.Nut 12:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Many things have ceased production but Wikipedia is burdend with their slaverish stories. Head-doctor 19:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A little admin attention here? See Corporate vanity policy enforcement:shoot on sight--Ling.Nut 04:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Corporate vanity policy enforcement:shoot on sight" doesn't mean that we are supposed to delete articles about demonstrably notable topics. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 19:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't understand the sea-monkey analogy. Sea-monkey is a very notable article. This is not. If it becomes even a little popular then, of course, add it.
 * Strong Delete - something some people made up. Get it out of here unless they add substantially more content.  Chris Kreider 20:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable, very few sources and seems to read like a hoax. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 20:47, 3 November 2006 (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.