Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compulink


 * 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 Speedy Delete as CSD A8 by DVD_R_W. Aaron 23:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Compulink
Prod removed without discussion. Non-notable company. Fails WP:CORP. Dipics 16:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Spamming alright: text was copy & pasted straight from Wasn't there a dialup online service in the UK in the 1980s using that name? Malcolm Farmer 16:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

My speedy criteriation was wrong (though it may be A7) Computerjoe 's talk 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as copyvio, and tagged as such. Akradecki 17:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete I had initially tagged this for speedy deletion, but it was removed. Computerjoe 's talk 18:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment As much as I wish that Spam/Advertising was a valid speedy criteria, unfortunately, per WP:SPEEDY, it's not.  Dipics 18:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Spam/Advertising isn't the recommended Speedy criteria here...it's A8, copyvio. Akradecki 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but I tagged it as spam. I guess it could be classed as A7, possibly! Computerjoe 's talk 20:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per A8. It's a copyright violation. Dipics, did you read why they said it was tagged for speedy deletion? -- Nish kid 64 19:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I did even better than that, I looked at the page history.  The reason given for the original speedy by Computerjoe was "Ad" which is why I commented on his entry here.  My comment was not about the current speedy.  Dipics 20:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Dipics is right. My bad. Computerjoe 's talk 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sorry about that. I made my comment in reference to Akradecki's comment about your comment. (That sounds weird). -- Nish kid 64 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Not a problem at all, I should have been more specific. You were not the only person to comment about my comment about computerjoe's comment about, never mind, I lost my train of thought.  Dipics 20:23, 12 September 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.