Jump to content

Wikipedia:Archived articles for deletion discussions/2004 June 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Archived articles for deletion discussions

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cyrius (talk | contribs) at 00:55, 12 June 2004 (+List of assets owned by Clear Channel Communications). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of many pages.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The results of these debates were to delete the relevant articles.

Please do not edit this page.

Full Nice Handbag Co

Company, not sufficiently known to be in Wikipedia. 4 google hits. Andris 06:09, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

"Not sufficiently known" is an awkward reason to not have something in Wikipedia. Most of us are probably only familiar with a tiny fraction of the topics covered. 4 google hits probably doesn't mean very much... firstly the website is very new (updated 15th May) and secondly b2b businesses specializing in physical products tend not to have much of a web presence. Keep, unless verified to be an insignificant company by some other means. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Um, I would say that 4 hits on Google "verifies it to be an insignificant company." Delete. blankfaze | •­• 14:55, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC
Um, did I not just explain in the very comment you are supposedly replying to why 4 Google hits is irrelevant??? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Not having a significant presense in Google doesn't mean anything. I'm sure there are a huge number of significant businesses that have no Internent presense, and even then might not come up in Google. Google is not the Internet, the Internet is not the world. I would recommend keeping this article unless it in someway conflicts with Wikipedia operations. --Jeff 23:07, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This is not an ad repository and no one is going to come to an encyclopedia looking for information on a company such as this. - Lucky 6.9 18:33, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Who are you to judge what people will come to an encyclopedia for? What is particularly ad-dy about this entry, compared with the hundreds (probably thousands) of articles we have about companies? I think you are rejecting something because it is outside your sphere of interest and experience. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I daresay that there are a lot of articles on this site well outside my spheres of interest and experience. There are thousands of articles about companies and their products, but they are companies and products of note, notoriety, infamy, etc. If I was looking for information on a Hong Kong handbag manufacturer, I'd go to Google and find a website. The burden of proof of notoriety in this case should be on the author.
        • It is a leading manufacturer of handbags in Hong Kong (and if you've been shopping in HK, you know they sell a lot of handbags). That is sufficient proof of notoriety. Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I should also mention that many similar articles have been deleted in the past. Let's be honest: Who really would come to a site like this and enter this name? - Lucky 6.9 21:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • If the circumstances are the same as this case, then those deletions were mistaken. People may not come to Wikipedia specifically for this company, but they may come to Google, like most of our traffic. Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Although significantly leaning towards delete, might it have more Google hits in a non-English name? The name sounds like a weird translation, something that only non-English speakers would come up with. -- user:zanimum
  • Keep. Probably reasonably notable in Hong Kong; naturally Google is biased towards companies in English speaking countries. Everyking 20:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless someone can provide results from google.com.hk that this is notable, then it just looks like unnecessary self-promotion to me. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:11, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • I fail to see how this would be considered self-promotion. The article will only be found if someone is ooking for information about this company, or if another article links to it. Another article will only link to it if the conpany has any significance; if not there is nothing to worry about it. --Jeff 23:07, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • For the third time, since when is Google the final arbitrator of anything? A significant proportion of the information I add to Wikipedia comes from books, and can not be found through Google (well it couldn't, until I added it to Wikipedia and hence to Google :-). It is not immediately obvious that this is self-promotion (the IP in question has lots of HK-related edits). Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, strong keep. The article is reasonably NPOV and doesn't sound at all like an advertisement, just a sober statement of its business. I feel Google means little, because many significant companies (for example, established manufacturers in "old-economy" industries) tend not to get mentioned much online. Also, I agree with Pcb21--who are we to judge what people will come to an encyclopedia for? And finally, in any case, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia (sorry, I meant "not a paper encyclopedia"). I can imagine people coming here to learn about the companies they work for, much as they might come to learn about the history of the streets they live on or schools they attended. Who are we to thwart that sort of curiosity? -- Wikisux 23:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • If Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, what is it? Maybe you can help redefine it in the main page. Mandel 16:04, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: wikispam. Demonstration of notability is the responsibility of the author. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Will someone please prove their baseless claims that this is spam. This is a b2b textiles company. There is no reason to call this spam.
  • I can't help but start to see this article as a bit of a litmus test of how deletionist has become in the last X months. I ask those in favour of deletion, which part of the deletion policy are you wanting to kill this under? And why do you see the article's existence as detrimental to Wikipedia? Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • "List pages that you believe have no potential to become encyclopedia articles." blankfaze | •­•
      • The article is already longer than many articles in various printed encyclopedia I've seen in my day (Britannica, New York City, Encarta). -- Wikisux 23:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • "List articles that contain no verifiable information." blankfaze | •­•
      • The information presented in this article is verifiable and true, as some cursory internet research will show. --Wikisux 23:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete This company has no political, cultural, historical significance. This isn't a accessories catalogue. Who would use this information? It does't have the history required by a commercial company to deserve an encyclopaedia entry. Where is the potential for it to grow beyond a stub? Employee of the month lists? Product ranges? We have to remember that Wikipedia isn't an infinite space where we have space for this stuff. Ask the creator to justify the page at least (if he/she hasn't).--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 23:37, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
      • The creator of the page was an anon. They easily might not find this debate. I have thus assumed responsibility for creation by proxy for the purposes of defending it. I justify the page by saying that it has verifiable encyclopedic information, and that it doesn't meet any criteria for deletion under our deletion policy. No threshold for how politically, culturally or historically important a particular company has to be is given. The threshold is that the information has to be verifiable and factual, and that someone has to be bothered to write it. Pcb21| Pete 07:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It is an ad, people. Delete it. RickK 23:40, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • If it is not NPOV, edit it. Pcb21| Pete 07:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • What's to edit? This is nothing but advertising, and as such, does not belong on Wikipedia. Are we going to allow articles on every small company in the world, with one paragraph saying what they do and a link to page to buy their products? If so, we might as well start selling ad space. RickK 19:25, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
        • Firstly, I don't see the problem with allowing people to write articles about small companies, as long as they are factually accurate and NPOV (as this article is.) Secondly, RickK, based on the evidence, I would submit that this article is NOT AN AD; it appears to have been written in good faith. The anonymous user has a long history of edits related to Hong Kong and China. — Wikisux 00:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • We have literally thousands of articles on things with links to commerce. For instance we have thousands of articles on fictional characters, all of whom created for the purpose of making money. The fact that there seems to be a willingness to keep them, but perhaps not this is indicative of a systematic bias. People want this article deleted because it is about a plain old non-western manufacturing company, rather than cosy western computery domain of understanding. But for a lot of readers, this company's existence is more significant than those daft computer instruction articles, or Star Trek, Starcraft, Pokemon... Pcb21| Pete 09:13, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I've got a few friends from Hong Kong. I'll ask them if they've heard of the company--not that it matters--but in the meantime, I'd say don't do anything rash. --Wikisux 23:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikispam. Shawn Mikula all over again. Ambivalenthysteria 12:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • No, User:130.88.185.84 isn't Mikula, he's made many edits to Hong Kong related articles. What I suggest though is that someone who speaks Chinese goes over to the Chinese Wikipedia and asks them there whether they have or want an article on the subject, possibly on their vfd page. Then, if it's good enough for them, keep if not bin it. Have posted a query at their embassy. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This appears to be the corporate equivalent of a vanity page. Verifiable and even written in a sufficiently neutral tone, but not necessarily encyclopedic. Lacking a policy on corporate entries, I have to compare it to other topics and note that we routinely keep topics which I consider far more trivial (such as TV characters and Pokemon strategies). Rossami 23:58, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Reference : Replies on this issue on zh.wikipedia.org is Here --Cylauj 15:04, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • What's there to keep? There are hundreds of thousands of such companies in Hong Kong. The company claims to export to the US and Europe, but I doubt anyone have heard of them. Mandel 16:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Starx 02:11, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete yesterday. No encyclopedic relevance. And the transparent crusading by a particular individual only solidifies my position. -- Stevietheman 04:31, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Please explain what you mean by "transparent crusading". Is it better or worse than opaque crusading? Pcb21| Pete 10:11, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • You're shilling for the article. Why waste one moment of your existence trying to keep this junk article in the wikipedia? -- Stevietheman 14:38, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I can't speak for him, but maybe he's doing it for the same reason you're spending your time crusading against it--against this short, factual, NPOV article about a real company? Maybe because we all want to see Wikipedia grow and become more useful? — Wikisux 18:08, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • Very strange response that's highly inaccurate. -- Stevietheman 22:00, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
            • There is nothing inaccurate (or strange?) about what I wrote. I think you're mistaken that Pcb21 is shilling for 130.88.185.84. Check their user histories; they are obviously different authors, and the anonymous IP has a history of nearly 50 edits on articles related to Hong Kong and China. — Wikisux 22:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
              • Yes, it's strange. I'm not the one going around commenting on everyone's vote. So to accuse me of crusading is a totally empty assertion. -- Stevietheman 16:54, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
              • Another point: You voted more than once. So, you hold no position to accuse anyone of anything. -- Stevietheman 17:02, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
                • Excuse me? Your baseless accusations are getting a little out of hand--first you accuse Pcb21 of being a shill because he engages in healthy, vigorous debate (isn't that the point of this board?) and now you've falsely accused me of casting more than one vote in this discussion. Sorry, but this is getting a little obnoxious. I'll be in the corner breathing deeply and counting to 10. Wikisux 20:53, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I've just read shill and it is obviously utterly unrelated to what I've been doing here ("A '''shill''' is a confidence trickster's accomplice who pretends to be an enthusiastic customer...") I don't know this company from Adam, I have no idea if their products are good, I utterly can not recommend them. What I have been doing of course is trying to enforce the Wikipedia:Deletion Policy for an article that caught my eye. In months past this article would've easily been kept. But over time there's been a drift towards deletionism, because the participants in vfd who are on the inclusionist side get fed up with the abuse. There are several articles that I could make this sort of stand for, but just don't have the time. The fact that making these sorts of stands is sufficient grounds to get called a confidence trickster's assistant just shows how far vfd has come (in the wrong direction). Anyone who's been around Wikipedia a while would know it is completely ridiculous to call me what you did. Pcb21| Pete 19:41, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • I stand by what I said. Further, shill is not fully defined in that article. A shill can also be "a person who works energetically to sell or promote something" (Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition). By criticizing so many people's honest vote, that's exactly what you've been doing. -- Stevietheman 17:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
            • I find your insinutation that I have some sort of profit motive for defending this article disgusting. Pcb21| Pete 20:32, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong neutral. This article falls in much the same category as non-notable secondary schools. There's no very good reason for it to be in Wikipedia, and there's no very good reason for it not to be in Wikipedia. IMHO it is silly to be expressing any strong opinion about it either way, and silly to be getting overly worked up about it. It's too long to be criticized as a substub, it's factual and probably verifiable, it doesn't use any promotional language—the company name says the bags are "nice" but the article itself doesn't make that claim. I wouldn't object to anything in it if the company were notable. Putting a non-notable company in Wikipedia is intrinsically promotional. We're using more disk space for this discussion than the article is taking up. But... there's no earthly reason to have it in Wikipedia other than that it might please the person who created the article. So... I don't care. I vehemently don't care. All be the same in a hundred years, that's what I say. Dpbsmith 19:32, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Would anyone know if this company were to close shop tomorrow? I still say delete. The author may well be eating chocolate ice-cream yoghurt this very moment while we are sweating over this. Give it an ultimatum deadline for he/she to justify otherwise delete. Mandel 21:29, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • I can't believe there are people considering keeping this 'article'. — Chameleon 22:06, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... This is a tough one. I think I will say keep and delete the link to the company website to make the article less ad-like. Delete the sentence that reads Its range of products include ladies handbags, unisex casual bags, travel bags, backpacks, shoulder bags, cosmetic bags, evening purses, natural & paper straw bags, and sports bags., since it sounds addish and seems to be lifted straight from the website. Maybe replace the final phrase with "...a wide variety of bags". Maybe someone might want to put a note on the author's talk page asking him what else he knows about the company and why he decided to write about it. Maybe a famous celebrity bought a bag from that company or something? Anyway, I don't see tremendous harm in keeping the article around, other than the 1 KB of space it's using on the server. Maybe in the future the article will develop into something bigger. ☞spencer195 01:35, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, reluctantly, as I like the name. If the article returns with details of high levels of employment or production or history or fashion influence or local economic notability, then I'll be happy to support it. --Zigger 03:29, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)
  • Two of my friends who are from Hong Kong say they don't know of this company, but another friend who currently lives there says she thinks she has heard of it. She asked why I wanted to know, so I told her someone wrote an encyclopedia article about it. By the time she got done laughing, I realized how ridiculous this entire thing is. I still vote to keep. Wikisux 08:49, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. And just because another user disagrees with you on deletion is no reason to label them a shill--amazingly, reasonable people can disagree! Meelar 05:09, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • That's not the reason I labeled that person a shill. He is a shill as he has been very very busy criticizing the 'delete' votes of so many other people, therefore deserving the label. It's fair. -- Stevietheman 17:12, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Honestly, I have not been "very very busy" doing this, it has taken only a fraction of my Wikipedia time. (Unlike you, only a very small fraction of my recent edits have been to vfd). I don't really understand why I am not allowed to question the votes of others... how else I am supposed to point out that deletion of this article is not in the spirit or letter of Wikipedia policy that vfd contributors have grown increasing ignorant of? Your original reason for voting "delete" was the very mature reason that I have been arguing to "keep". Your instinct was to "delete", seeing that view was obviously not going to get consensus, you decided to smear me by using a loaded term like "shill" and hoped to get away with it by presenting your own definition of that word. But hey let's continue this somewhere else. Pcb21| Pete 20:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It might not be of the broadest appeal, but it sounds like some people have heard of it, and those who aren't interested needn't read it. Cambyses 13:48, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This is turning into some debate. It might be significant in future trend-setting. Should Wikipedia be generally deletionist or inclusionist? Should we a) Delete unless proven to be significant; or b) Include unless proven to be insignificant?
I tend toward a). Yeah, Wikipedia is not paper, but Wikipedia isn't Google either. Not everything factual needs to be in the encyclopedia, IMO. Mandel 00:03, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps the question when considering deletion, though, is not whether everything factual needs to be in the encyclopedia, but whether anything factual needs not to be in the encyclopedia. Unless the Wiki really starts to struggle under the size of the database, what purpose is actually served by a significance test? Who suffers if there are articles of interest to relatively few people, so long as they are well-written, accurate, NPOV etc? Removing the significance test gets around the problem of defining significant, which I would argue is impossible to do in an objective, culturally neutral fashion. With the number of people in the world and on the net, an article could be of interest to only one person in a million, and still find 1,000 avid readers. Such an article might be on an arcane scientific topic, a variety of tulip, an obscure opera or the manufacturer of one's favourite handbag. Who among us is really qualified to rank other people's interests in order of importance? Best wishes, Cambyses 00:34, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Seriously this debate will end soon (because of the deadline), but I hope it will be carried off to somewhere else. It is pretty interesting (not on the co. per se) and is of value. Cambyses is firmly in the inclusionist camp. But if we don't practise some sensible deletionist policy won't we end up being something like the world wide web? Mandel 00:55, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
You've rumbled me there - I guess I am an inclusionist <grin>. I think merely being factual and NPOV is quite sufficient to differentiate us from the world wide web as a whole! Agree about carrying on the debate in more general terms. As a pretty new wikipedian I don't know how/where these things happen, but could somebody who knows what they are doing create a suitable discussion page or point me to it if it already exists? Best wishes, Cambyses 01:11, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Discussion from zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈#Full_Nice_Handbag_Co

Please see english Votes for Deletion page - can you tell us if this is worthy of an article? Thankyou, duncharris talk 144.32.128.73 20:54 2004年6月2日 (UTC)

He's asking if "Full Nice Handbag Co" is a famous store in Hong Kong as many English Wikipedians assumed it to be. I have never heard of it. It just sounds like ad of a minor store. Well, it's certainly succeeding in making its fame with all the discussions it arose on EN WP! :-D --Menchi (討論頁)Â 04:02 2004年6月3日 (UTC)
Well, I live in Hong Kong, and I've never heard of it. But it's not what matters, what matters is that the article complies with the regulations, isn't it? In the tone of the article, I can say that it is quite neutral and for that it deserves to stay. However, the word "leading" in the article is somewhat misleading as it hasn't gain much fame (at least not to me) in Hong Kong --Johna 14:51 2004年6月3日 (UTC)

上访告状难上难

Zvitko Barkanovic

Faulty information all around. Danny 00:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Seems reasonably important if someoen can fix it. I have no knowledge of the subject, so I can't state anything about the factuality.siroxo 06:31, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Is this real? I tried searching on google for "Zvitko Barkanovic", "Ramzan Rovic" and "Jibril Pasha" and did not find anything about any of the three. I know google is not perfect but it looks suspicious if I can't find anything mentioned in the article. Could be misspelled, could be someone playing a joke on Wikipedia. Andris 19:45, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • "Mount Tadmus" also cannot be found. Andris 19:53, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Brian Alkire

Appears to be a vanity page. A couple of mentions in Google: 1 a duplicate of information here; the other an honor roll list. Joyous 01:57, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Non-notable and appears to be unverifiable. Looks like his writing career is about to have a setback. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --Starx 04:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Though it's nice to read about a teen with some real depth, assuming all this is true, please delete anyway as vanity. - Lucky 6.9 07:29, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, probable vanity, and unencyclopedic in any case. Unfortunately by an anon. Hopefully he will perservere. Andrewa 10:44, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • He's been doing a little bit of vandalism on the side. contribs. Delete. Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:10, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Noted. Hopefully... No, I won't say it. Andrewa 20:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Andris 19:37, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, probably vanity. --Woggly 11:15, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Definately vanity - pointless, delete. Maestrosync 11:54, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Neutral Territory of Prevlaka

Per Talk:Neutral Territory of Prevlaka, this should go. --Shallot 12:33, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Patent nonsense. Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:55, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Appears to be nonsense. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:57, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sounds very suspect and no corroboration was provided. I tried googling, but found nothing. If this was reported in a (serious) newspaper, it should go (in a much shortened form) into the Prevlaka article. Zocky 22:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above. Delete. -- ChrisO 11:00, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See also Talk:Neutral Territory of Prevlaka

Inferior

Dicdef. - Fredrik (talk) 18:05, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - Not sure why this would ever be considered needed. - Tεxτurε 18:11, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - aren't pure dicdefs speedy deletion candidates? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:25, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, no. Delete. RickK 18:49, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xevi 21:01, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Fish Brothers

Insignificant local Brighton band. All music guide doesn't know 'em, nothing at Amazon. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Sitting on the fence. Google search on the Fish Brothers [1] although that also includes a UK Mitshubishi dealership. I note that the Levellers website notes that they are that groups faourite support band. May be significant within genre and All Music Guide not as comprehensive outside the US.Capitalistroadster 23:27, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete for now. Slight vanity. --Quagga

Danny Davini

Does not seem to be an influential painter yet. --Zigger 22:24, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)

  • Yeah, looks like vanity. Delete. blankfaze | •• 23:58, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious vanity. --Quagga
  • Smells like vanity. Google hits appear to be self-promotion. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:22, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with reasoning. Andris 06:20, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Endar Spire

Name of the ship that the game Knights of the Old Republic starts on, which crashes shortly into the game. Don't think that it's article-worthy on it's own. --Andrew L 23:09, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Policy conservatism

Seems to be a neologism created by a Washington Post article. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:08, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Seems worthless to me. Delete. blankfaze | •• 05:08, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Neologism, near-dicdef. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:20, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User silvermane

Mangled mess that has been awaiting translation for almost a month. - SimonP 21:51, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. RickK 22:30, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:34, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What, so you write garbage in a foreign language as opposed to English and it hangs around for longer? That makes no sense.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 23:54, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:50, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dpbsmith 01:28, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

List of assets owned by Clear Channel Communications

Substub, and all information is in Clear Channel Communications anyway. --Etaoin 22:17, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • It's not even a list. Delete. RickK 22:28, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • True or false: there is an advantage of deleting as opposed to keeping as a re-direct to Clear Channel Communications. 66.32.138.16 23:35, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. And ^true. The current title serves no purpose, knowones ever going to search for that and not search for Clear Channel. --Starx 23:57, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete I really can't see an opulent future of expansion for this stub.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 23:52, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, for good reasons noted by others. Dpbsmith 01:25, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debates and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issues or the deletions should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Archived_articles_for_deletion_discussions/2004_June_12&oldid=4053050"