Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Smebranding/SME Branding
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was Delete, also snow.. -- Cirt (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete Depending on what considers "unambiguous advertising", this might qualify for G11 speedy deletion but it's arguably a borderline case. Nevertheless the article is promotional in tone, created by a user with a fairly obvious conflict of interest and hasn't been edited in 6 months. I think the combination of issues supports deletion. Pichpich (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Kleinzach 22:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Although it's in userspace, it's clearly promotional, and the COI is also obvious. If the page had just been created relatively recently, I would have argued to keep, pending development and per WP:NOBITE. But I think 6 months time to work on it without anything happening since creation, is enough. Also, it was the one and only page edited by the user, the author has been indef blocked (spamusername) on the same day, so it's effectively abandoned. Therefore delete per nom, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM. — Becksguy (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- delete WP:FAKEARTICLE is the most appropriate standard here, in my opinion. But COI and SPAM are close second. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per above, seems like promotional stuff. Per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 20:50, 13 May 2011 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.