Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazarrón


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Mazarrón

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This appears to be some twisted version of WP:COATRACK. We have a notable subject, however the only things that I could find were ads. There appears to be multiple copyright issues like this [] that makes me tend to believe that while nominally notbale this is being used as a coatrack to advertise tourism. This article would require a fundemental rewrite to come to a nutral point of view. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the German WP the user:Duc belgique is blocked. Maybe this would be useful here, too. The User also tries to spam others wikis:

--Josef Papi (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * German Now corrected
 * Spanish
 * French (cleaned up)
 * Dutch
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. As it stands, this is almost pure advertising, with no attempt to say how or why the subject is notable in the larger scheme of things. Rewrite wrt Wiki guidelines or scrap it and start again. .Keep now the reversion has been done. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - This was just a case of a new user in the last two days basically blanking a standard municipality article and completely re-writing it with inappropriate content. They way to deal with these situations is to simply revert to the pre-vandalized version - which I just did.  Nominating a vandalized article for deletion instead of just reverting is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.--Oakshade (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – the ads and un-encyclopaedic content have been removed. Places are inherently notable, and although the article could obviously be improved there is no reason to delete. I endorse the comments from Oakshade. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2010 (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.