Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rawhide Boys Ranch


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Rawhide Boys Ranch

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

See the WP:COIN report. Apparently, this article is going to keep popping up; I'm bringing this to AfD mainly so that we've got WP:CSD available in the future. - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I just deleted and then restored so that I could restore the entire history for purposes of this AfD. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: part of an ongoing campaign to WP:ADVERTise this ranch by a WP:COI editor. No substantive non-advertising versions of the article exists and this editor (or puppets thereof) has resisted any attempts to remove the advertising from it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears as though I stumbled into a COI, Advertising thing, the article doesn't really read like it to me but I think G4 is appropiate.-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep Atama brings up a point I didn't consider when saying it's G4, the organization appears to be notable with refs to back up some of the stuff.-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 21:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt as spam.* — Athaenara  ✉  19:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ... unless * a well-referenced nonpromotional rewrite can be both accomplished and maintained as per Giants27, Atama, CliffC, and Royalbroil. — Athaenara  ✉  04:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Everything that has been said before is true. Article has been recreated numerous times, with copyvios that advertise the company. With the history of this article, I hate to endorse keeping it, with every fiber of my being, knowing that it has been recreated over and over by a COI spammer. But in all fairness, it's a notable organization, with 187 Google News hits. It's not so much the article subject that's the problem, it's the COI editor turning it into an advertisement. I can't help but feel there's a potential for a good article here as long as neutral editors are working on it. I suggest that it get stubbified and warn the creator not to work on this article, and let others turn it into something decent. I could probably lend a hand myself in that. --  At am a chat 20:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Atama. Does seem notable, just needs to be cleaned up and have more eyes on it to keep the promoters in check and the language neutral.  --CliffC (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable topic that has been spammed. It used to be the most well-known charity in northeast Wisconsin because of Bart Starr's support on television commercials. Sufficient independent reliable sources.  Royal broil  03:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: SPI report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rawhide1683. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets notability standards; just watch it for spamming and whitewashing. I've attempted to clean it up a bit. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article is fine notability wise, the editor just needs to stop. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. per Atama. The article includes plenty of secondary sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink Bull (talk • contribs) 00:37, 24 July 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.