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. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota Legendary Moments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Previously proposed for deletion (not by me) with the following comment: "Non-notability of content or of the people creating the content. No sources given. Subject of article is actually advertising for Toyota so any in-depth descriptions could actually be perceived to be WP:SPAM. Same content previously speedied under CSD a7." - Mike Rosoft 08:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - NN, SPAM and possible copy vio...? Delete. Spawn Man 08:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete There is a part that says these commercials were significant enough to warrent the Daily Sun to write articles and interview the actors involved. Supply links and work on cleaning it up and I could very welll reconsider. Turlo Lomon 08:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Just because a newspaper interviews a group of people doesn't mean they're notable - It's called a special interest piece, completely different to a front page article. Besides, for all we know, the writer of this article could be making false statements and only saying that they were interviewed in the Daily Sun. Spawn Man 08:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Changing my stance a tad based on your comment. Turlo Lomon 09:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. No different than any of the other 1000s of advertising ideas out there. The whole point of the ads is to garner coverage in whatever media they can. Merely showing up in a newspaper shows that the PR firm responsible are earning their fee. This does not make it notable, it makes it perfectly normal. It could also be argued that by highlighting these ads that WP is endorsing the advertising of Toyotas. --WebHamster 10:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Recurring dreams 10:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability beyond an unsourced reference to a puff piece associated with the ads, which if genuine could itself have been part of the paid advertising. Euryalus 11:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, advertising. Keb25 13:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's an ad not an article. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 15:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN - indistinguishable from any other ad campaign. There are some which have an impact on wider society which merit an article, but this ain't one of them. Orderinchaos 01:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This campaign is probably more notable than most, at least in the Australian rules football regions of Australia, it still isn't notable enough for an article. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 11:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per OIC. Twenty Years 14:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 00:20, 18 September 2007 (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.