Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debatepedia

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. east.718 at 09:36, November 25, 2007

Debatepedia

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Debatepedia. Was speedied once under WP:CSD#A7 . see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fwiki.idebate.org. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, non-notable site. I can't find any sources, just blogs that mention Debatepedia in passing. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, and very close to a G11 as well, judging by the content of the article and by the overall behavior of its main contributor, who spammed many articles around Wikipedia with links to his site. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 21:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. I agree with the speedy nomination but it has been declined by another admin. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete where are the sources? how is notability established? Article does not meet our inclusion criteria (and is poorly written).-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, conflict of interest, non-notable --Dawn bard (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the sponsors indicate the notability. I take a neutral view of which debate organizations are important, and which contributors spammers. DGG (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it was not an administrator who removed the speedy tag, it was me, since the article was already listed at AfD at the time and I did not consider this a speedy candidate. The website is supported by several well-known debating organisations and is covered on many websites of these organisations (e.g. [1]). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to International Debate Education Association. Currently a fairly new site that has yet to gain a reputation outside the organizations promoting it. If it becomes notable in its own right and there is significant information to write about it may be worth an article in the future. Until that time, this is simply advertising.-- SiobhanHansa 13:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that a speedy tag was originally placed on what must have been clear would be a controversial nomination is an indication that there is some possibly questionable motivation involved.DGG (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, per SiobhanHansa. Snigbrook (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is spam. Ρх₥α 17:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would've supported a speedy on this one; no sources demonstrating notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:50, 24 November 2007 (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.