Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business press

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. Kurykh 05:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Business press

Business press (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article fails WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. Hu12 (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The Business press is a very notable topic and certainly deserves an article to describe its history, current form, and major players. If the current article is only an indiscriminate list, then it simply needs to be edited. Joshdboz (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: This article looks like a listing of business press instead of an actual article. Also, it fails WP:NOT. I'm not so sure it qualifies as spam necessarily, but I believe if the original contributor of this article genuinely wants an archive of business press, I'd suggest this article's contents be moved to List of Major Business Press in the United States instead. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Weak Keep It looks ok now. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note re; the spam nomination. This was one of many promotional articles created by an Incisive Media Investments Ltd, WP:SPA spam sock account. see. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Publisher_Spam.2C_Incisive_Media_Investments_Ltd._.282.29. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and edit critically. The spammer does not seem to chave created the article, but just added his company's section. Whoever developed the article, the overall topic is notable. Having embedded lists do not violate policy. Whether all the red-linked titles should be included is another matter. Since the IncisiveMedia section was indeed created by a spammer, and is way out or proportion to the notability it can be trimmed drastically. and then we'd have an adequate article. They should probably be done by some objective criterion like rank in category, which may take a while to check. But there is an available authoritative source, Ulrich's,so it is possible. The quickest way to improve the article is to comment out the redlinks, and I have just done that. I know some people think that everything contributed by a spammer should be kept out of WP, but that is an incorrect interpretation of WP:COI--they just need a review. DGG (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep according to Joshdboz. Article needs improvement and editing.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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.