Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CampusTours (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

CampusTours
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article was created by a single purpose account, is advertising and spammy. As noted in the previous AfD 3 years ago (which closed with "VERY SLIGHT AND WEAK KEEP") it needs a rewrite but it hasn't been rewritten in the past 3+ years. It also doesn't meet the requirements of Notability (organizations and companies); the entirety of the New York Times coverage is "and at campustours.com, we saw a selection of colleges' promotional videos" (that's in a +1000 word article) and the coverage in the Cincinnati Enquirer is literally just a link to the website but no discussion of the company. Both are very trivial coverage and, as noted in the previous AfD so are the other two references (one gives a 404 and I can't read the Washington Post article but note that by elimination and from the comments of the previous AfD nominator one of those two articles probably doesn't mention the company at all). Note that, apart from the creating editor, the only other major contributor to the article is the editor from the 76.179.xxx.xxx IP range, which was warned for spamming links to CampusTours into other articles and is almost certainly both the article creator and linked to the company. Brumski (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  —Brumski (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * delete Fails WP:N as well as WP:ORG and WP:SPAM.  Them From  Space  22:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, the AfD nomination was complete and it was listed but someone had accidentally removed it, possibly as a result of an edit conflict. Your slightly incorrect robot phrasing is forgiven though. Brumski (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, no significant coverage, and the promotional issue is also a problem. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 7 December 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.