Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Design for Diversity 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 (and should have been a CSD G4, but it doesn't matter now). Duja 13:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of a previously AFDed article. The original ADF discussion was not extensive, however this article fails W:CORP and fails to provide any independent verification of the importance of this group, delete --Peta 02:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CORP. Arbusto 05:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete There actually is a request for this article to be created (See link in discussion section of the article page). How do you reconcile that sort of contradiction? There are plenty of aricles on Wiki without sufficient sources which are allowed to remained undeleted. As long as the fact that further sources are needed is clearly stated, why not just leave it there for other editors to add to it? Have you actually read the article? The importance of the company comes from who the founding partners are. The article is also relevant to Wikipedia as a complement to the articles about the founding members. I don't think WP:CORP quite applies in this case. --- Zefrog 11.47, 27 September 2006 (GMT)
- We have criteria for notability and verifiability because this is an encyclopedia. It's not too difficult to work out to that you've got something to do with the organisation.--Peta 12:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With all due respect, an article being requested means nothing. Absolutely nothing. I have requested articles before (such as Gone Daddy Gone, which was created after I requested it, though my request was probably completely unrelated to why it was created), but so have people who request crap. One could easily request List of Australian ice hockey players who own chihuahuas. Not all requests become articles, and not all requests deserve to become articles. -- Kicking222 17:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Stubbleboy 16:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an answer to one argument, what about: "There are plenty of aricles on Wiki without sufficient sources which are allowed to remained undeleted. As long as the fact that further sources are needed is clearly stated, why not just leave it there for other editors to add to it? The importance of the company comes from who the founding partners are. The article is also relevant to Wikipedia as a complement to the articles about the founding members. I don't think WP:CORP quite applies in this case."? --Zefrog 16:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CORP. Greenshed 00:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there is nothing, I don't think, in that article that can not be easily verified. --62.136.110.211 19:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, least of all it doesn't currently meet WP:CORP. If it does at a later date then the article can be brought back then (Zefrog - we could userfly it into your userspace if you wanted). Thanks/wangi 16:30, 4 October 2006 (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.