Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donpenny


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Donpenny
Ad page. NN - Alexis rank 1,382,929 -- SCZenz 19:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete it's just a sickening ad. I'm tempted to nn-bio this since dumping an ad into Wiki is hardly an assertion of note. -Splash talk 21:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking that we need an equivalent version of nn-bio (as a SD criterion) for companies/websites. I've put my views in a couple of places, but who knows if anyone will listen? -- SCZenz 21:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have listned, but I disagree on companies. Too hard to tell notable from non for a safe speedy criterion, IMO. DES (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Eh, I meant "enough people will listen to change something", not that nobody noticed. ;) One question for you, though: how is it harder/easier than with people, where the criterion is whether it has an assertion of notability? -- SCZenz 22:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. We could impose that rule on coompanies. Except that most of even the spammiest company articles include statemetns that are at least arguably claims of notability. People become notabel through specific achievments, which arfe likely to be mentioned in any decent articel about an actually notable person. But companies are often notable as much for size and market presence as anything else, and IMO the presence or absnece of an assertion is noit a useful guide. The real question for a speedy criterion, IMO is "what obvious cahracteristic can we poitn to, that can be determined quickly by a single person, that will pretty much always identify an articel that ought to be deleted". If you think otherwise why not create Proposal for speedy deletion of non-notable company articles or the like. i'll be happy to coem there and joint the discussion, and to call other people's attention to it. Look at the way the "Blatent copyvio" proposal was handled, and how it is going forward. DES (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In this case, however, delete. And pending deletion, i have munged the link to not rewarrd linkspamming. DES (talk) 21:50, 30 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.