Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power and Interest News Report

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. --- Deville (Talk) 04:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power and Interest News Report

corporation or organization for which the article fails to assert any notability. What little content there is seems to be borderline promotional or opinion. Nothing has linked to this article since its creation in 2004. Agent 86 17:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although this article fails to assert the organization's notability, a Google search generates millions of hits, and shows that this organization is very notable on the international scale. -- Nishkid64 ^Talk 18:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Power and Interest News Report" (in quotes) gets roughly 85,000 hits on both Google and Yahoo!. Not in the millions, but still a good number. - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 20:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - KeepPINR is one of the most trusted commentaries on international affairs. Needs to be expanded though.
Expand or Delete. Article contentless. User:Yy-bo 21:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 09:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 16:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT THE DANG HECK!?!?!?!?
- By the way, Delete. Contentless. --Drahcir^{my talk} 19:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having little content is not grounds for deletion- there are tens of thousands of similar stubs out there.--Wafulz 23:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - "contentless" does not mean little content. It means no content. Having no content is grounds for deletion — speedy deletion, no less. However, this article is not contentless. Uncle G 12:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a pretty notable international publisher and its articles seem to be used pretty often. --Wafulz 17:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. It's a notable site, but I agree the entry needs to be expanded.Samoproducer 15:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have linked and stubbed the article. TerriersFan 02:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a link to the SourceWatch profile. Appears to be credible. Guy 17:05, 21 September 2006 (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.