Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicked Campers


 * 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 for now as weeks have shown no other votes and improvements are suggested so if none of this happens, I myself would be open to renominating again (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  06:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Wicked Campers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete  This article largely consists of 100% copyvio, of a Media Statement, taken from the primary source.  Just puffery.  The article is not encyclopedic and is written like an advertisement.   The article has been edited by a number of single purpose and IP editors.  It seems likely that User:Ariayuuki,  User: Addinka and User: Addinkamdv and possibly other single purpose IPs  User:101.191.236.112,  User:121.200.239.131  and User:124.169.103.78  -   editors are socks.  They have all added what could be described as 'promotional content'.   The article has a non-NPOV.   It had blacklisted links.  'Wicked Campers' falls notability guidelines for companies and organizations.  On 3 December 2016 it was noted (on the article and the article TP) the article should be WP:AFD considered for deletion.  There have been no article or TP changes since then.   The article should be deleted based on notability WP:N, verifiability WP:V, reliable sources WP:RS, and what Wikipedia is not WP:NOT B20097 (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe for Wicked Campers, any publicity is good publicity and any bad publicity is even better. There is a risk here for Wikipedia not to become an element of the Wicked Campers promotional strategy. B20097 (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Although the article is truly awfully written they have received enough media coverage, independent of the subject, to pass GNG. It would seem the a complete rewrite, and long-term/permanent semi-protection, would be more appropriate than deletion. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 10:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep but yes it needs a complete rewrite. The company easily meets GNG, but not for the material as presented.  A balanced article, and the current one is not, would give a whole and extensive section documenting controversy (just one of many RS examples) . . .   Aoziwe (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Poor article, but easily meets WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The issue of WP:COPYVIO and WP:NPOV can be easily addressed. The company in question is a notable multi-national vehicle rental company and there is a range of secondary sources (mostly in New Zealand) discussing the operations and controversies in a more encyclopedic style. Ajf773 (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - concur with the other editors above. The article needs to be re-written however the subject is a notable company - with significant media coverage. Dan arndt (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs a big re-write (especially the history section), but definitely meets WP:SIGCOV.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  09:41, 20 December 2016 (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.