Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 2

< December 1	Deletion review archives	December 3 >

2 December 2006

Pear Cable Audio Cables

Notable Company that is not a Spam Entry. I would like to request that Pear Cable Audio Cables be considered for undeletion. The article was deleted, then reposted with the addition of 3 links to point out the notability of the company. This repost was also deleted. To address the complaints specifically: The page is factual material that does not make any biased claims whatsoever, ie the article does not state that Pear Cables are the best, or anything of that nature. The company is notable due to the fact that it has been written about by multiple independent organizations (3 links were provided). If Pear Cable Audio Cables does not qualify for notability, then virtually every company on the High-end audio page should also be deleted except for perhaps a couple of publicly traded companies. The complaint posted by Tubezone that complains about the price of 1 product sold by Pear bears no relevance to the subject of deletion. However, it does exhibit a bias that is exhibited by some who do not believe that high-end audio cables are worth the money they cost. This opinion is diametrically opposed to the opinion of virtually all respected high-end audio publication reviewers, but more importantly bears no weight on weither companies should have articles in wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Kitten Vandal

Useful page containing information on how to combat such vandalism. ThisIsOnlyMe 21:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Who would look through old LTA cases to find how to combat vandalism? Just add any good advice somewhere else. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original MfD, I assumed due to the lack of the link that there wasn't one. I think it should be deleted, but not against a lack of consensus. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original MfD, which was no consensus. Not a speedy candidate, if it's that important to get rid of, send it through the proper channels. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Comment.~~ Weak endorse MfD ~~Not sure how to go on this one.~~ KV has become active in the last hour or so, but it is most likely passing copycat vandalism. I agree that it probably should be deleted, but WP:DENY isn't really an argument for deletion. Put back through MfD if it is felt necessary. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^ER 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]