Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Happiness


 * 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   no consensus. Cirt (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Open Happiness

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An advertisement for the Coke company. Not a notable encyclopedia article. Alatari (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the notability, but may I ask how this is an advertisement? The article seems to present the subject in a neutral, encyclopedic manner. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources are self published from Coke. The reading of the first paragraph is not neutral; Joe Tripodi's comments are pure advertising.  Then we get externally linked right to an advertisement site.  Are the other two sources reliable and legitimate? Alatari (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. I have serious doubts about the independent quality of the media.asia website and, as noted, the rest is Coke-submitted. The article, without having an overtly promotional tone, qualifies as spam--at least in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have spent the last few minutes reading and re-reading the opening paragraph of the article and can't work out how it can possibly be characterised as "not neutral". It is a factual statement of what the campaign is, and the same goes for most of the rest of the article. Notability is pretty obvious from this search with this article from The New York Times and this one from Rolling Stone amongst the first three hits. Some people seem to be confusing writing about an advertising campaign, which is perfectly acceptable, with assisting the campaign, which is not. This article does the former. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Phil Bridger. Edward321 (talk) 22:09, 22 November 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.