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. Shirt58 (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wolves Summit

[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Kvng with the following rationale "Sourcing is not clearly insufficient so this deletion is potentially controversial." Well, as far as I am concerned the sourcing is weak and consists of unreliable, niche/minor spam-sites that are likely payed to promote content, and press-releases, which do so openly. It is also misleading - the first (now dead) ref was labelled CNBC but the link betrays it was just a republished press release. It was created by WP:SPA and likely WP:COI, given its name, User:Magda wolves - and sadly, since the event took place last weak, I guess the spammer achieved its goal; the least we can do is clean that up and delete it. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't take anti-spam and COI context into account when patrolling proposed deletions. I suggest that if you suspect this sort of thing in the future, you take it directly to CSD or AfD. PROD is for deletions that are not expected to be controversial. The justifications you give for deletion of this are, if not potentially controversial, at least complex. ~Kvng (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotional spin on an unremarkable event. The nominator's arguments are convincing, and I don't see anything better. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant and clear advertising, going as far to contain costs and pricing information, none of this suggests anything better at all and, if it wasn't for the sake of saving ourselves from a future AfD, this should've been deleted by PROD as it was in fact appropriate. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 18 November 2016 (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.