Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheLadders.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   keep. The Bushranger One ping only 05:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

TheLadders.com

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article reads like a non-neutral advertisement and is routinely edited by those associated with the company. Rxguy (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep because the company is notable, as shown by extensive coverage in reliable sources. Correct shortcomings due to conflict of interest content through normal editing rather than deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove Anytime that criticism is added with reliable citations it is removed by TheLadders, a biased user attempting to keep any negatives about the company off of the page. It cannot be kept impartial when it is constantly managed by the company itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rxguy (talk • contribs) 05:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Rxguy is arguing that the Wikipedia community is incapable of maintaining a neutral and reliably sourced article in the case of TheLadders.com. We ought to reject that argument.  Uninvolved editors should place this article on their watch lists, and act to ensure that the article reflects the neutral point of view. Deletion of an article on a notable topic is most certainly not the answer. Cullen328 (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Time, The New York Times, and CNN articles. These reliable sources sufficiently establish notability. Someone ought to check out WP:BEFORE, as non-neutrality cannot be the sole reason for deleting an article, unless, of course, it is composed entirely of spam, which in this case, it is not. Goodvac (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove because the author/main contributor freely acknowledges in the Discussion page and their User pages that they are using Wikipedia as a p.r. tool.--Knevaslstue120 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - If representative of the company are editting the article contrary to our guidelines, then those representatives need to be corrected. The company itself has received coverage in mutliple reliable sources to establish notability.  Any other issues are either editting actions, or potentially admin actions in the case of severe problems with any article neutrality.  To take an extreme example, if PR flacks from Nike rewrote the Nike, Inc. article as a big advert, would you advocate deleting the Nike, Inc. article? -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, weakly. This does appear to have gotten some independent notice concerning its business model, which involves having job seekers pay for their own listings.  This is borderline significance in its field.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. It does seem to pass WP:ORG with significant secondary source coverage, I think. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cullen328. NPOV, "reads like an advertisement", and vandalism/edit-wars are reasons to fix and possibly lock an article, not to delete it. Sangrolu (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2011 (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.