Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wildwater Rafting Ltd.


 * 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 deleted WP:CSD by NawlinWiki. Non-admin closure. JohnCD (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wildwater Rafting Ltd.

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unashamed advertisement, largely copied from the company's website, by an author who says on the talk page "Working for this company i have been asked to create this page... " Promotional tone and COI are not themselves reason for deletion, but I find no indication that the company is notable enough for an encyclopedia article, e.g [http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Wildwater+Rafting+Ltd. Google News] has nothing about this company and Google largely listing-type mentions (not all this company). Of the two independent references cited, canoekayak.com mentions the rivers but not this firm, National Geographic only mentions one of their resorts in a list of over 30 places to stay. Wikipedia is not here to provide free advertising listings. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. No references found. I took the liberty of removing the section that advertised their resorts, and a paragraph that gave their calendar for trips on a certain river. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Those dates are not when we run trips those are the only dates that have been negotiated with the Federal Wildlife comission for ANYONE to run on that river! [this offered by ZippityZach]
 * And? That information should be in Cheoah River then. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsourced spam. I also seem to remember the same company having a similar article deleted a few months ago. The original editor's statement "I work for the Company and therefore have rights to use information from the website" rings a faint bell, but I could be wrong. Yintaɳ  17:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We did have a site up and no one could figure out why it was gone. No one has offered to help clean up an article. [this offered by ZippityZach]
 * Your company website is not a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as copyright infringement of the company's web site (which could be addressed through proper licensing or an article rewrite) and as unsubstantiated notability (which could be addressed with reliable sources). I got the same lack of independent noteworthy search results as JohnCD, and no hits on Google Finance. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ZippityZach: If this page is to be deleted I would like help as to how to better create another one that is worthy of a website. If you were to go to Google and search whitewater rafting or white water rafting or any variation our site pops up in the top five or six spots each time. You can allow a business like NOC to advertise on your site with no problem but when I put up a site and add verifiable links and even clean up the copy so its not advertising you want to delete me. This is unfair and I will fight it. If you decide to take down this site I will protest NOC's listing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantahala_Outdoor_Center ZippityZach (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at Other stuff exists. Still, you have a point in that that article is also unreferenced--though it's a lot less spammy than the one under discussion here. Of course, a problem here is that everyone knows the NOC (including me--it's hard to miss it on that drive along the Nantahala), and chances are there is plenty of coverage in independent sources. However, I placed a couple of tags on it; you're free to propose it for AfD... Drmies (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - db-copyvio, now tagged, no indication on talk page that permission has been granted yet. Also non-notable per nom, fails WP:GNG, but if you deleted the copyrighted stuff there'd be nothing left on which to judge. MuffledThud (talk) 18:46, 16 April 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.