Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newfield Resources Limited


 * 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Newfield Resources Limited

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Created by an undisclosed paid editor, in violation of the Wikimedia Terms of Use. Most of the sources are WP:PRIMARY, fails WP:GNG and is also WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I don't feel the article should be deleted. It has reliable sources about a notable, as well as successful, company. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * comment. Notice to all editors here! Joseph2302 the AFD nominator is taking this issue personal. He has nominated this same article for speedy deletion on the grounds of "undisclosed paid editing". He has really made me cry for the past 24 hours. I don't know why he's attacking all the pages I created so far. He nominated all of them for speedy deletion and then for AFD. There must be vested interest in his mind. I've already alerted Admins about this issue via the appropriate means. Thanks Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not nearly enough uninvolved secndary sources, almost all sourcing is primary and connected to the compnay. Fails notability. BMK (talk)
 * Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Philg88 ♦talk 05:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as promotional and non-notable. They have raised monsy to look for gold and diamonds, but according to the article, they have not yet found any. If they fdo find it, and fine enough, they might be notable some day, but not yet.
 * Paid editing, even undeclared paid editing, is not a specific reason for deletion at AfD, but we can delete at AfD any article that the consensus determines is unfit for Wikipedia. To avoid confusion, it should not have been given as the primary reason. We do not need to. We certainly can and will delete an article about a non-notable subject, or a promotional article regardless of subject, and almost all articles written by undeclared paid editors fail on both grounds, along with a good many of those written by declared paid editors.     DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails notability, which is not even established in the article. Sources are mostly primary, and can not be used to establish notability.  Scr ★ pIron IV 15:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above - Fails ORG. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete another of Hilumeoka2000's paid-editing articles. Non-notable and promotional. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2015 (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.