Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon Brothers Group
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 keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gordon Brothers Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PR fluff piece. the editor who created it is likely an employee of there's. violates WP:N, WP:RS and WP:NOR Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Thousands of news and book sources are readily available. If anyone objects to these sources not being in the article then they are welcome to add some. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone objects to the deletion of this article than they are free to be bold and edit the article to bring it up to wikipedia standards. that is what User:Eastmain does and for that he has received lots of barn stars. he does not receive barn stars for saying "lots of links exist - feel free to add them" - he earns barn stars for adding them. if no one cares enough about this failure of an article to improve it during an AfD why would they care about it when it is not on the cutting block? besides this article is so full of WP:NOR deletions it would need to be restarted from scratch to be made even a half decent article. Misterdiscreet (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at my contributions and talk page you will see that I make a regular practice of improving articles by adding sources, and often get barnstars and "thank you" messages for doing so, but I don't have the time to do them all single-handedly. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i do not have the time to delete every article on every Simpsons episode even though it is certain that 99% of them are un-notable no do most delitionists. so they stay. you do not have the time to save every article and those that you do not get deleted. sometimes a lack of time works to your advantage sometimes it does not. if you want to change the rules of the game then maybe i should be made an admin so i can delete every simpsons article without taking consensus. what the consensus would be is a foregone conclusion so to save time let us just skip to the last step and delete! of course because we do not have time does not mean we should make decisions as though we did and this article should not be kept because it "could" be made better if you had more time. either make it better or accept its deletion just as i have had to do with the simpsons. Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at my contributions and talk page you will see that I make a regular practice of improving articles by adding sources, and often get barnstars and "thank you" messages for doing so, but I don't have the time to do them all single-handedly. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone objects to the deletion of this article than they are free to be bold and edit the article to bring it up to wikipedia standards. that is what User:Eastmain does and for that he has received lots of barn stars. he does not receive barn stars for saying "lots of links exist - feel free to add them" - he earns barn stars for adding them. if no one cares enough about this failure of an article to improve it during an AfD why would they care about it when it is not on the cutting block? besides this article is so full of WP:NOR deletions it would need to be restarted from scratch to be made even a half decent article. Misterdiscreet (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The criterion for deletion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced, and there are enough references. In my personal opinion, to make nominations for AfD without the least try at sourcing is just plain unconstructive. --the best solution will be to amend the unsourced BLP deletion process to require WP:BEFORE. We have correctly made a big issue over the fact that these articles need to be sourced--the appropriate response is to try to source them. Berian, previously turned down a speedy on this, and pointed on ton the nom's talk page there were references, and gave a link to them, but it was brought here nonetheless. DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i have looked at these sources and they no more make this subject notable than the mass of sources on Barry Bond's knee make that notable Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see 1390 Google news references. as an indicator of the firms importance, this is the company that bought CompUS and then closed it -- and similarly with multiple other notable firms. That's what makes them notable and newsworthy. The way to deal with this article is to add so key ones. It's not that Phil and I refuse to do the work. It;s that you had the prior obligation, per WP:BEFORE. It is so much easier to just nominate, without looking or caring, that your failure to do this puts an unfair burden on content-writers. But I'll tell you what. I added 4 key references to 2 of their most notable transactions, but I expect you to add some also. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- how does my AfD put an funfair burden on content-writers yet this speedy delete not? does WP:BEFORE not apply to members of the wikipedia power structure, also known as the cabal? and look at the Cousins Properties now. did all the reliable sources not exist when the article was speedy deleted? Misterdiscreet (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at it this way -- injustice is everywhere, so everywhere there is an opportunity to correct. Choose the path you wish. The speedy deletion of Cousin Properties was clearly dumb, but its far from the first and far from the last.--Milowent (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- how does my AfD put an funfair burden on content-writers yet this speedy delete not? does WP:BEFORE not apply to members of the wikipedia power structure, also known as the cabal? and look at the Cousins Properties now. did all the reliable sources not exist when the article was speedy deleted? Misterdiscreet (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see 1390 Google news references. as an indicator of the firms importance, this is the company that bought CompUS and then closed it -- and similarly with multiple other notable firms. That's what makes them notable and newsworthy. The way to deal with this article is to add so key ones. It's not that Phil and I refuse to do the work. It;s that you had the prior obligation, per WP:BEFORE. It is so much easier to just nominate, without looking or caring, that your failure to do this puts an unfair burden on content-writers. But I'll tell you what. I added 4 key references to 2 of their most notable transactions, but I expect you to add some also. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i have looked at these sources and they no more make this subject notable than the mass of sources on Barry Bond's knee make that notable Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG.--Milowent (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2010 (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.