Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1NT


 * 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. The argument that we should not allow small businesses to sneak by on notability is perfectly valid, but the number of sources provided for which this not-so-small-business is the primary subject indicate that this is in fact a fairly notable organization. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

M1NT

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. No credible assertion of notability of this nightclub. Article is advertising. Wikipedia is not a compendium of traveller's information. Wtshymanski (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The article is promotional in tone (and has been worse in the past) but there is quite a lot of independent coverage, both in the articles currently listed as external links as well as a number of additional ones shown at GNews.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  06:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Arxiloxos. Chester Markel (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator. What independent coverage? A few examples would really help. The last time I looked all I found was their own Web site, which as a self-published source isn't helpful for testing notability. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ,, and surely constitute coverage in independent WP:RS, for instance. Chester Markel (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - The rationale WP:Doesn't Suck As Bad as Some Stuff doesn't cut it for me. There needs to be a very high bar for inclusion of small private businesses, otherwise WP will quickly come to resemble the Yellow Pages. This is a promotional fluff piece which smells as though the club had a role in its writing. That's not good enough. If there is material out there which demonstrates this firm's encyclopedia-worthiness, it needs to be showing in the article. Not theoretically "out there," for a commercial concern, notability needs to be showing in the piece and ad spam removed at once. In my opinion, just as we treat Biographies of Living People differently than Biographies of Historic Figures, we need to treat commercial pages of small firms differently than pages relating to large corporations. If we don't hold these pages to a rigorous and high standard, there will be negative consequences for the project down the road when the onslaught of 50 million businesses or whatever around the world begins. Wikipedia should not be allowed to become a part of any company's marketing program. Carrite (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - As pointed out above, there are reliable sources in which M1NT is the primary subject of the article. As such, it meets the WP:GNG.  Addtionally, one can find even more coverage where, alhtough M1NT is not the primary subject, the coverage is more than just a passing mention.  For example: . -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2011 (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.