Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bohlin Cywinski Jackson


 * 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. Since only the nominator commented, and it's already run for 2 weeks, I'll treat this as a WP:SOFTDELETE (meaning it's like a WP:PROD, so if anyone objects after the fact they can request undeletion) Qwyrxian (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Bohlin Cywinski Jackson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale (as posted on the article's talk page) is included verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion. I do note, however, that the most recent edits from User:Bcjmarketing were very recent and didn't change much - large parts of the article have been in place since 2011 and before. They may be a marketing account for BCJ (and I have cautioned them not to edit this article on that basis), but they did not introduce the problems cited by the IP - else, we'd just revert and be done. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This article reads like an advertisement. Shouldn't it be deleted? --74.0.166.140 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I will be participating in this forum within the next few days after I establish my formal Wikipedia account. I stumbled upon this article by accident; when I read it, I felt that it was a fluff piece for the company. I noted that it was recently edited by the account "Bjcmarketing". I would be willing to bet that this user is the public relations firm for the company. I don't feel that there is any notability for this entry; the Wikipedia article is more like a company page on Facebook that users there could "like". I don't know if I have the right to vote on this nomination prior to establishing my Wikipedia account. If I am allowed to vote, I would vote to DELETE the article. When I do formally establish my Wikipedia account, I will identify myself on this page and merge this comment into the comment that I leave with my new name. Thank you for your time. --74.0.166.140 (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You can certainly comment and !vote, if you wish. IP votes are usually discounted if they're obviously sockpuppets or tied to the subject, such as an IP that resolves to ABC Publishing voting Keep on the AFD for ABC Publishing. Reasonable comments, such as yours, are taken into account by the closing admin. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theopolisme   ( talk )  11:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)



--TheGuyFromPhilly (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete First, please let me say that I was the person who brought this issue up in the first place. I just started my account today; I am now a registered user here!  Anyway, let me repeat what I first said: I stumbled upon this article by accident; when I read it, I felt that it was a fluff piece for the company. I noted that it was recently edited by the account "Bcjmarketing".  I would be willing to bet that this user is the public relations firm for the company.  I don't feel that there is any notability for this entry; the Wikipedia article is more like a company page on Facebook that users there could "like". I do enjoy using Wikipedia as a source; I feel that Wikipedia should not be used as an advertising piece.  Thank you for letting me have a say.
 * 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.