Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Packer


 * 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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Packer

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Reason Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Vance Publishings article, "The Packer ‎". Previously prodded, but removed by the articles creator.
 * This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see the -Spam case

Using Wikipedia for Self-promotion and are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

________________________

This article was not created as part of a spam effort. I created this article long before the other articles cited were written. I am not connected to the other users listed on the spam page.

I haven't been involved in much other (past) editing due to busy-ness with other activities and being a new user.

_____

How is information about this business publication different from articles on these business publications? Some of the publications listed are small regional publications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Trade_magazine_stubs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accountancy_Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereford_World http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_Week

____

I removed the AFD header earlier because it said it the article would be improved, the creator can remove the article.

I have reworded the article and made it sound more neutral. The name of a competitor has also been added. --Clarence Rutherford (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. I added two references. The article seems neutral. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article, as now written, sounds neutral. -- --12.191.126.130 (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Ulrich's shows it as a major trade publication: audited circulation 12,434, published since 1893. I removed the names of the editorial office staff, leaving only the editor. That's the only one we list for most journals, even more important ones.     DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * btw, i think the other magazines in the spam list given above are probably appropriate also. Unless there was a great deal more than than shows now, I do not see this as spam, but as possibly COI editing that does need somechecking, but not wholesale condemnation.   DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 30 October 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.