Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quizzing.co.uk


 * 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. --Core desat 02:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Quizzing.co.uk

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-noteable website. Un-sourced also. Is this advertising? Dalejenkins 17:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable site. Corpx 19:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB and WP:N. --Nonstopdrivel 20:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments (These are my views) I used to work for the company before being unfairly banned from its events and events run on its behalf. I run a web site they consider to be a rival. The talk page is extensive, and contains information about the origin of the article and how it was hijacked into a non-NPOV advert. It is still disputed, but the approach taken by the company and its supporters equates to them having decided they own the article, and thus censor any criticism (of which there is plenty). Anybody not towing the party line seems to be regarded as a competitor, and unfit to make edits to the article. The Wikipedia 'rule' that you shouldn't edit articles about yourself or your company seems to be ignored. I am sure there will be many Keep opinions in this AfD, as the word will get out about it. Given my position I feel I can only really comment. Jw6aa 00:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments (These are my views) Jw6/Will Jones is partially correct in that he has been banned sine die by this company. The page was originally created by David Bodycombe and quickly edited by Jw6 to portray this orgnaisation in a unfavourable light, and as both of them gentlemen own rival sites it quickly became a POV/NPOV Battleground.

The argument as to whether the page amounts to an advertisement is perhaps best left to those with no personal stakes in the matter. However I would urge the moderators who make the final decision to leave up the results section please.

The British, European and World Championships are recognised by many of the quizzing community (even jw6 has a website that records the results of these events)and it would be a crime if this was deleted simply because of the continuing animosity between jw6 and one of the directors of quizzing. Portlius 14:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 05:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * CommentsThat article is pretty much just an advertisment for the websiteMissnamine 14:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, fails WP:WEB. db-web.  Corvus cornix 00:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete see below Weak keep Tone can be adjusted First step would be removing the list of (non-notable) winners as name-cruft. Though I usually think drastic cuts during an AfD are not appropriate, this would clearly improve the article, & could be easily reverted in any case, so I've done it. DGG 00:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the eds there changed it back to include the names of all the winners. I've changed my !vote, on the grounds that the article was intended as vanity and a place for spam. Can't help people who don't want to be helped.DGG 00:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry what was so controversial about a shortish list of winners at UK, European and World Championships? And what is namecrufting? By all means edit the descriptive sections for tone but surely the winners list is objective and worthy of some note? Portlius 14:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - the championships involved are notable. Rethought of structure might be needed. Trenwith 19:46, 26 June 2007 (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.