Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Textbookunion.com


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 19:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Textbookunion.com

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A probably well-meaning new contributor added this article. To me, it seemed to have a smidge of notability asserted, but the article read like an advertisement. When it was tagged as such (and other clean-up tags) by various editors, the author got rather annoyed and asked for deletion instead of having Wikipedia contributors add to the article every "20 seconds". However, rather than granting this, and to show good faith, I'd rather we debate the article, as it does (just) assert notability. Your opinions are welcome; mine is reserved. RΞDVΞRS ✖  ЯΞVΞЯSΞ  21:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Advertisement. Company that is not notable for another thing. as "Textbookunion.com" leads to the official website, it clearly exists, but "Textbookunion" only gets 23 g'hits. Bottom line: Not notable, advertisement.HondasareGOOD (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say I'm a new contributer, but I'm new at creating new pages from scratch. I'm open to recieving help, I just don't like the page getting all marked up and criticized withing 30 minutes of when I started creating it. I thought people would like to have more information out there regarding any topics, so why not this. If I'm going to be receiving criticism for everything and more people deleting my work than contributing or helping me clean up a bit, then whats the use. My efforts are obviously not worth it to people. I wanted to do something good and give something back by contributing a page, but people seem more annoyed than anything else. I'd rather keep it up... whats the harm. More will be added over time, but if I have to defend my contributions, then I'd rather not even have the page up. I ask that people please reconsider. Also, textbookunion.com isn't a company out for promotion, its an organization. Because I'm new to editing I don't know how to set the template different. Any help would be appreciated. Deltaforce5000 (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I apoligize for any inconvenience this may have caused, but this page clearly fails to meet the notability guidelines for web content (See WP:WEB).HondasareGOOD (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Arbustoo 00:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete, fails WP:WEB. The linked reference is from another university, which admits to some independent attention; nevertheless, the underpinnings of the article are too shaky.  That aside, I recommend that the creator look over some of Wikipedia's policies before contributing further, in particular "Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community."  The ability to accept that each and every contribution is subject to the review and approval of the community is fundamental on Wikipedia.    RGTraynor  16:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per failing WP:WEB. Also an advert. Sr13 (T|C) 17:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, I struggled a bit on this one. I suspect that in time it will become notable but at present it does fail WP:WEB which lists as a criteria "multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." There is only one published source, that being the newspaper clipping. If the author can add to that I would be disposed to look more favorably at keeping. JBEvans 18:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; violates WP:WEB & WP:SPAM --Mhking 01:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. It's spammy enough as it is, but when the author cops an attitude, throw the book at it. Realkyhick 01:14, 6 April 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.