Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wealthtrust


 * 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 don't delete as there was evidence presented that this meets WP:CORP. Article could use some work to assert importance more clearly though. W.marsh 02:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wealthtrust
Originally created by Mrushbenton. I tagged it with db-advert which was them removed by PEAR. After seeing the advert the original author agreed and blanked the page. I then tagged it with db-blanked which was again removed by PEAR, so I am bringing here. Does not meet WP:CORP. --Hetar 19:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, but move to WealthTrust (the actual name), Hetar Repeatidley vandalized the article. There is no evidence that the creator Mrushbenton wanted the article deleted, Mrushbenton is new to Wikipedia and never stated this anywhere. It is more likely that Mrushbenton was frustrated and angry with Hetar for marking his or her first article on Wikipedia as an advertisement and blanked it in anger and confusion.--PEAR 20:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PEAR, none of what Hetar did was vandalism. His actions were all mostly in line with accepted wikipedia policy and practice. (OK, so the db-author tag may have been inappropriate, but it wasn't vandalism) Calling someone's good-faith editing vandalism just inflames the situation.--Kchase T 20:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, but move to WealthTrust (the actual name), Hetar Repeatidley vandalized the article. There is no evidence that the creator Mrushbenton wanted the article deleted, Mrushbenton is new to Wikipedia and never stated this anywhere. It is more likely that Mrushbenton was frustrated and angry with Hetar for marking his or her first article on Wikipedia as an advertisement and blanked it in anger and confusion.--PEAR 20:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PEAR, none of what Hetar did was vandalism. His actions were all mostly in line with accepted wikipedia policy and practice. (OK, so the db-author tag may have been inappropriate, but it wasn't vandalism) Calling someone's good-faith editing vandalism just inflames the situation.--Kchase T 20:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

mrushbenton: I was experimenting with creating my first wikipedia article and did not realize that once edited, i couldn't immidiately delete it. I do not know who hetar is and am not angry or frustrated with him/her, nor did i attempt to do anyhting to any articles but my own. As the creator, i would like for it to be deleted as soon as possible. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrushbenton (talk • contribs).


 * Delete as it fails WP:CORP. JChap  T  /  E  20:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There's some press coverage from local publications on their website, , . It's not much, but it's enough to do an NPOV article. Do people think that coverage is enough to meet WP:CORP?--Kchase T 20:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * plaeaee just get rid of the article and then we can go from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrushbenton (talk • contribs)

--Wafulz 21:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete the author has requested deletion. --Wafulz 21:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think that local press coverage merits meeting WP:CORP. Are you allowed to remove the db-author tag even though the author pretty clearly wants the article removed?
 * WP:CSD is sort of ambigious about answering your question. I removed it b/c I figured an AfD with at least one keep vote was enough to let it go through AfD. In any case, I've expanded it a bit with sources I found online. I think it now meets WP:CORP's liberal definition of coverage, which requires multiple articles, but doesn't specify that they have to come from a national source, for example. If others agree and it is kept, I will expand and polish this article, but I'm not going to spend more effort on it if it'll just get deleted. Of course, I now think we should keep it.--Kchase T 03:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:CORP; there's not really even any assertion of notability.  I looked at some of the Google hits; they all seemed to be ads or straightforward business listings.  The "News" link on the company's own webpage doesn't have anything notable. Mike Christie (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no notability asserted. ~ trialsanderrors 00:35, 22 August 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.