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: speedy G11'd by DES . ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 05:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)reply
This draft needs
to be blown up and started over if the product or company is
notable in the first place. The draft as it stands is promotional to the point that it isn't worth trying to save a stub.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 00:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - per
WP:NOTADVERTISING and
WP:COMPANY. There is clear evidence of the draft creator being employed by the company with responsibility for social media and PR. I wasn't going to thoroughly review all the references until such time as the editor had invested more time in the article, but from what I've seen there's nothing there to suggest notability.
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk) 09:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Tagged for
G11Speedy delete as blatant promotion that would need a total rewrite. Even i have my limits.
DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: this MfD can be closed now as the article in question has been speedy deleted per
G11. Thanks for that,
DESiegel. I would have done that myself as the AfC reviewer, but wanted to get input on the undisclosed paid contributor first.
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk) 19:26, 23 July 2017 (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 page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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: speedy G11'd by DES . ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 05:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)reply
This draft needs
to be blown up and started over if the product or company is
notable in the first place. The draft as it stands is promotional to the point that it isn't worth trying to save a stub.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 00:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - per
WP:NOTADVERTISING and
WP:COMPANY. There is clear evidence of the draft creator being employed by the company with responsibility for social media and PR. I wasn't going to thoroughly review all the references until such time as the editor had invested more time in the article, but from what I've seen there's nothing there to suggest notability.
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk) 09:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Tagged for
G11Speedy delete as blatant promotion that would need a total rewrite. Even i have my limits.
DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: this MfD can be closed now as the article in question has been speedy deleted per
G11. Thanks for that,
DESiegel. I would have done that myself as the AfC reviewer, but wanted to get input on the undisclosed paid contributor first.
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk) 19:26, 23 July 2017 (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 page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.