Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J Silver Enterprises LLC


 * 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. Magioladitis (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

David J Silver Enterprises LLC

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Speedy tag removed by an IP. Real-estate company with no assertion of notability, one employee. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * delete should be speedied. No assertion of notability. And no advertisingBali ultimate (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not speedy. The article makes claims of news reports, but is uncited.  There is certainly more here than the requirements of a speedy deletion would merit.  I support deletion given what is there, but I also support letting this have the full 5 day run to give editors a chance to improve it should sources be found and added.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  01:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:CORP without reliable sources. Claims in the article and related changes to Ricardo Salinas Pliego are not supported by any references. This is a rumor post with a spammy aroma. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete We're not advertising here.Critical Chris (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as self-promotion. Baileypalblue (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep article It supports that the business was involved with celebrities something that is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.0.151 (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the above IP (now blocked a second time) has been repeatedly removing the AFD notice from the article in question, and appears to be a single purpose account with a significant conflict of interest in the subject at hand. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  16:08, 18 January 2009 (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.