Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camila Janniger


 * 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. --Core des at 20:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Camila Janniger


Some assertion of notability, making it non-speediable, but not much support for the assertion. The inclusion of contact info for this physician's private practice adds a note of spam. (Note - PROD tag removed by anonymous editor without comment) FreplySpang 15:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable, no secondary sources. "References" cited are spam links/directions to office. Seraphimblade 15:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as advertising. Kavadi carrier 15:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising and probably a conflict of interest judging rrom the creator's name. Montco 23:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G11 (vanispamcruftisement). Danny Lilithborne 01:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep! Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please note that the preceding user has been posting this exact same argument on over ten AfD's (as of this writing) with no discussion of the individual case's merits in any case. Seraphimblade 03:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I would hope that we do discourage folks who come in with the intention of creating vanity and spam articles.  Montco 05:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is my default keep message! I made some slight alterations when needed.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete When all else fails and the article is hard on the eyes to read, google it. Less than 50. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It appears to be a conflict of interest: Author is User:Ejanniger. Article also fails WP:NPOV, and is at best a cleanup candidate. Ohconfucius 07:07, 6 November 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.