Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ad-Up


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  01:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ad-Up
Article asserts notability but has had an unreferenced tag since August 2006. I can find no sources to backup the claim. Smells like linkspam. &mdash; Moondyne 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom &mdash; Moondyne 02:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. If it walks like linkspam and smells like linkspam.  Montco 02:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertising, WP:CORP -- Librarianofages 02:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per G11 — Xtifr tälk 03:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Straight-up advertising. BusterD 11:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -Bogsat 14:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per Xtifr. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per Xtifr. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Spam. EVula 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Speedy Delete G11 blatant advertising. EVula 03:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  Advertising -- lucasbfr talk 02:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - This Article is a totally legitimate entry with at least 3 valid third-party references. See References. If anyone actually bothered to do more than 20 seconds of research on this, they'd see this entry merits further writing not ignorant flaming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.158.140 (talk • contribs) 26 October 2006 19:28 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete -- blatant advert. tiZom(2¢)  01:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * SAVE - Has anyone bothered to check the references? They are real.  This entry is a stub and may need further information, but it should NOT be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.158.24 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: being "real" is not an issue (and is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia—lots of real things don't have or deserve WP articles). The questions are: is it notable? (Does it meet WP:CORP?) And is it a blatant ad? (Wikipedia is not an advertising service.)  The refs may help address the first point (though I'd have to review them), but the second point is far more important!  WP is being innundated with spam, and a new shoot-on-sight policy has been instituted (see WP:CSD).  An article about an internet advertising company, in particular, is going to have to bend over backwards to avoid even the slightest appearance of being spam in order to avoid being deleted.  If you can rewrite the article to avoid even the faintest hint of spamminess, I will happily change my vote (but see WP:COI).  I, however, have no interest in rewriting the article for you.  Having this article deleted now will not prevent anyone from writing a non-spammy article in the future, so really, it's no big deal.  Either fix it now, or just chill.  Xtifr tälk 23:08, 27 October 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.