The result was speedily deleted per G11 by Panyd ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. — KuyaBriBri Talk 14:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The nature of the entire article represents rather a cheap advertisement and is not of informative and scientific character. Essentially, it does lack the necessary verifiability across most topics and definitely does not fulfill the requirements regarding a neutral point of view. Either it should be completely rewritten (edited), based on independent and recognised neutral sources or just be deleted (to give the author a chance to start from scratch). La.margna ( talk) 00:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted per G11 by Panyd ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. — KuyaBriBri Talk 14:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The nature of the entire article represents rather a cheap advertisement and is not of informative and scientific character. Essentially, it does lack the necessary verifiability across most topics and definitely does not fulfill the requirements regarding a neutral point of view. Either it should be completely rewritten (edited), based on independent and recognised neutral sources or just be deleted (to give the author a chance to start from scratch). La.margna ( talk) 00:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC) reply