Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business gold coast

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 delete. Wizardman 04:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business gold coast[edit]

Subject is not notable, much of info could be included in main Gold Coast article. Written like an advert. Contains a spam type listing of subject's advisory board and projects. Article's original author had objected to PROD template, and promised to improve. One week later and no improvement made since. Dmol (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's Vanispamcruftisement all the way through. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like spam; non-notable corporate extension of city government. Merge what's useful into the city's own article. Note: I was the original author of the PROD. RayAYang (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as WP:SPAM. I'm surprised it wasn't speedied. Ravenswing 16:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Do any other departments within local councils have their own article? I don't think so. Delete! --Lester 20:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: This article is merely corporate promotion of a kind that may have a place in a prospectus or corporate plan, but has no place in an encyclopedia. The originator of this article, Edmp1, has contributed to WP on only a small number of occasions; mostly in relation to this article, but one or two other contributions to related articles. This is likely a WP:COI situation. The article is not written from the perspective of an objective observer. I see nothing notable about the business venture on which this article is based. The business venture does not meet the primary criterion for notability of an organization or company specified in WP:COMPANY. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is of public interest to Gold Coast residents and businesses who are interested to know what their government is doing to stimulate employment and economic opportunities, given the city's rapid population growth rate. Have added some further info. Other Council's do have seperate pages for their business units (see Brisbane City Council).Edmp1 (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "of public interest to Gold Coast residents and businesses" is not a reason to put this information in an encyclopedia. We are not a business directory, nor do we publish lists of business people or their strategies and agendas.--Dmol (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being of public interest is irrelevant to whether an organization or company qualifies for an article in Wikipedia. There is only one criterion by which such an organization can qualify, and it is the criterion of notability described in detail at WP:COMPANY. There are many activities, organizations and companies that are of public interest, and there are documents and web-sites which cater for that public interest; but in the majority of cases Wikipedia is not appropriate. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.