Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin Unite


 * 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 Speedy keep --Tone 10:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Virgin Unite

 * — (View AfD)

Delete.A single purpose account editor named Virgin United made this page just yesterday, after the organization started sponsoring Wikimedia Foundation's fundraising drive. The should not exempt it from Wikipedia's advertising rule as well as the self-reference rule. Lovelac7 10:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawing nomination. Sorry I brought it up. I was just being bold. Lovelac7 10:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Virgin Group--Tux Linux Fax 10:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. article is created by the arbcom. The Uber Ninja 10:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Created by the arbcom'? Not. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, this article has been edited and built up by several other users, it is in bad faith and poor manners to call for this afd-all year long we do this for free, do not support biting hands that feed you. Chris 10:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if this is a bad-faith nomination. I'm glad this group is helping us, but they should abide by the same rules as everyone else. Lovelac7 10:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a bad faith nomination as it cites specific rules for articles. Also, articles are not exempt from deletion simply because they are about the "hands that feed you". If that is your only argument, it is not a valid one. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-12-28 16:22Z


 * Speedy Keep Unless the author just found the page in a bad state and decided it was impossible to fix on the spot (as there does not seem to be any discussion prior to the statement of a clear need for deletion by the nominator) then they should stop screwing with the afd process. This page is not in violation of the advertising "rule" as it contains quotations which justify its statements. An article would have to be unverifiable and unfairly unneutral to fail that criteria, something which this is not. Also, avoiding self-references does not stop pages about Wikipedia existing. That is not a deletion issue again. Again, please stop mucking about with the process...Discuss in a rational manner first before taking the issue to here and the whole encyclopedia may be able to improve in an economically sound way. Ans e ll  10:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Virgin Group. What I see at the moment is a (mostly) encyclopaedic article, but one that isn't really enough to stand alone. It would make a muh better section in the Virgin Group article, which is at present basically an introductory paragraph and then a list of Virgin brands (which would probably work better as a separate list article). Thryduulf 10:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Jumping to conclusions about original posters should not form part of an AfD discussion. Promotional content should not appear in articles, but this one has been edited intensively by experienced Wikipedians, and doesn't appear particularly problematic. Charles Matthews 10:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - wtf - David Gerard 10:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, do not merge. A distinct -- and newsworthy (and I'm not talking about the donation matching) -- arm of the Virgin Group, part of Branson's latest interests (see the Forbes story linked in the article. --Calton | Talk 11:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Errr.... what exactly is the reason for supporting deletion of this article? As of now it seems pretty much encyclopaedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.247.206.170 (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2006 (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.