Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirSitter


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

AirSitter
One of several spam articles related to The Casual Courier. It has no meaningful content. If the author would like, the term could be defined in The Casual Courier itself, assuming that article doesn't find itself on the wrong end of an AFD.

For other related articles, please see The Casual Courier, casual courier (afd), "TCC" (afd) (included only for reference, these are NOT a part of this AFD) - BigDT 15:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. In the (stated) expectation that it would be cleaned up, I voted keep but cleanup on the casual courier article. Damn my assumption of good faith ... apparently, the cleanup-but-keep consensus on casual courier has inspired its creator to wikispam every single term related to this corporation. Here's four reasons to delete, in a single sentence : this article, as a (1.) dicdef of an admittedly (2.) copyrighted trademarked term, is (3.) advertisement and (4.)nonencyclopedic. -- Docether 15:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Point of information - it is a trademarked term, not a copyrighted term. You can trademark anything you want - it just means what it sounds like - it is a mark that you use in your trade. It's a bar on other people using that term to leech off of your success - it's not a bar on other people mentioning the word in ordinary conversation, writing about the word, or using it in such a way that it was nothing to do with what you trademarked. BigDT 15:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Thanks, I stand corrected. It appears that this trademarked term is not in common usage other than as a mark of the particular corporation, which leads me to believe that this is part of an advertising / promotional usage of Wikipedia (considering the other factors). -- Docether 15:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice. Because of the trademark issue, a redirect would be problematic, even if material was merged. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:59, 15 June 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.