Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland?

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. (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 07:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is written only for advertisement as per Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Plus no independent source found to show notability except some self publishing sites. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 11:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. That is a program that was run in the past (till 2012), it has sources as it ia European Union run programme and is supported by a lot of sources from various reliable newspapers. Masti (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I agree with User:Masti. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The current revision of the article has nothing to do with WP(!):ADVERTISING. It is neutral, informative and well written. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Quite informattive and well supported by reliable sources. Poeticbent talk 18:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable, well-written, well-sourced article Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Way too much excessive advocacy to be close to neutral. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain. Shii (tock) 10:43, 21 June 2014 (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.