Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Competition cams

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 speedily deleted by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 03:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Related logs: Comp performance group Comp cams — Athaenara ✉ 04:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Competition cams

Recreation of twice-deleted material by CSD; advertising; non-notability. Article could potentially be improved, as per discussion with Tnxman307. — Yavoh 16:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This company does not demonstrate notability that is verifiable in reliable sources. TN‑X-Man 16:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am copying the following from the AfD talk page for the author. TN‑X-Man 21:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose for the recreation is OBVIOUSLY to make the article both more legitimate and neutral. It contains multiple sources, is well-researched, and has absolutely no legitimate reason to be deleted. On another note, the admins should feel free to edit the page as needed, since that is one of the principles that Wikipedia was founded upon. The admins claim that they encourage civility, but I must refute that on account of this nomination for deletion with no legitimate reason for doing so. On another note, I will continue to recreate this page until it stays should you rudely delete a my well-researched hard work. Also, I highly doubt the owners and founders of the company would appreciate it either, considering Edelbrock IS in your "encyclopedia," which an article that is written in a very similar fashion to this one. Good day.

Both of you are incorrect in your OPINIONS of "Advertising;Non-Notability". Perhaps you should try actually READING the articles. Slow down, take your time, and check each source to verify how incredibly wrong this petition really is. Also, TNXman should copy the message that is on Yavoh's discussion page. It is a much more persuasive argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Compcams.com, powerperformancenews.com and compperformancegroup.com aren't independent, reliable sources. Alexa is trivial. The sema.org links turn up nothing, and the semahof.com and zekesauto.com links are trivial and non-reliable. Jabarke1, take a look at good look at WP:RS and WP:CORP (and WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF while you're at it). Also note that articles deleted through this process that are recreated without addressing the issues that got them deleted can be speedily deleted and can result in the editor being blocked. TheMolecularMan (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt: blatant advertising that keeps reappearing over and over again. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:27, 20 September 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.