Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RINET


 * 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. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

RINET

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contest prod several days ago, non-notable organization. Was originally a spam article, tagged speedy on its second revision, but IPs removed the speedy tag. Also swarmed with COI edits. BoL (Talk) 04:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC) *Keep I think this is a useful article. The charts make the article more useful. The article just needs references.-- RyRy5   talk  05:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral I don't think that the subject fails WP:NOTE. But shame on the authors for creating a blatant piece of advertising.  They even refer to it as "our organization" within the article.  To save the article, it would require serious attention from editors who are not involved with the subject organization.  As it stands it is blatant WP:COI.  (However, I am assuming that the creators had good intentions when they created the article.) --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nuetral I read it over, and I didn't think that it really matched with WP:NOTE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RyRy5 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment I doubt it. I remember placing the speedy tag on December, then they removed it without me realizing. Then I added another csd tag and the speedy was declined. Prodded it, and an IP contested it. Seems to be role accounts hurr, and here we are in the now times. So, I say delete. BoL (Talk) 05:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete "It's useful" is one of those arguments to avoid. I'm more concerned about whether or not the article meets WP:ORG. By all appearences, it does not. The activities are not national or international in scope. The group's size and achievements are lacking. No verifiable information from reliable independent sources is provided. That's more important here than being "useful". —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkAudit (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Not Notable, no references on article, page seems to copy the information from Rinet. Use of "Our organization’s strength" in second line leads me to believe it was created by RINET. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It was. I've took it up with one of the many SPAs that ran the article, presumed blocked. Will list IPs if requested. BoL (Talk) 01:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails notability requirements, improper tone belies COI ("our organization", etc). Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:11, 26 March 2008 (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.