Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban Eye

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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Eye[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A seemingly promotional yet non-notable article whose single-purpose contributor has left the building and may not return for an indefinite amount of time. I wish to also include Wikipedia:Editor review/urbaneyeorg for the same reasons. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 22:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable advertising. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 22:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not understanding the characterization of the article as advertising or promotion. WP:ARTSPAM states, "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual." On the contrary, the article seems to be relatively WP:NPOV. The subject isn't a business or company, so how does it meet the definition? Also, WP:ORG states, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The first reference in the article links to an article by the BBC about the subject. Other references are provided. Does this not satisfy notability? Clarification by the nominator or others would be appreciated. --Bsherr (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep Probable COI from creator, but other than that, seems to meet notability requirements. Independent coverage. Turgan ^Talk 13:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Well written article, with good sources, eminently notable. scope_creep (talk) 19:01, 29 August 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.