Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UnitedProsperity.org

:{{la|UnitedProsperity.org}} ([{{fullurl:UnitedProsperity.org|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UnitedProsperity.org}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|UnitedProsperity.org}})

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. Article was created by an Sockpuppet WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to United Prosperity. This is one Part of a larger campaign of Spamming and promotion on Wikipedia.Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#unitedprosperity.org. Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. WuhWuzDat 20:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

:: I have edited the page to try to bring it to a neutral POV - I would appreciate any feedback on my efforts so far. On the grounds of notability - I have placed a comment on the articles talk page. I agree product placement and self promotion is not acceptable and should be flagged and dealt with but I think there is a place for this page if Wikipedia standards are followed. Herne nz (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

:::WP:POV is not the issue, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:SPAM Are. This is one Part of a larger UnitedProsperity spam campaign on Wikipedia. Use of multiple WP:SOCK acounts are involved see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#unitedprosperity.org.--Hu12 (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UnitedProsperity.org||}}

Thank you for re-listing this page. I have edited a few articles but this sort of discussion is new for me and I am still learning.

The first issue regarding a possible deletion is notability - if the topic is not notable. it does not belong here at all. I have added comments on the talk page showing the organisation has been the topic of at least one independent article and I will leave it to others to decide if this meets the standard. If this is not enough, I would appreciate some guidelines as what is required before the standard is reached.

The other issues -listed as spam and sockpuppets - are serious but are in the past and can not be changed. If the article is noteworthy and can be put into a state which meets Wikipedia standards, I would not like to see the topic denied from Wikipedia on these grounds. If attempts are made again to self-promote, this could be dealt with by reverts and comments on editor talk pages, Herne nz (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2009 (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.