Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinky-Bloc


 * 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 a combination of blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite and patent nonsense. I waded through the "official web site" and eventually found some coherent English in the form of a press clipping from People. As noted by Andrew Lenahan, there's a self-published book behind all this. The gibberish isn't an attempt to avoid deletion. It's the same style that the web site is written in, and is probably the author's style. The press clipping does describe the book as "probably only completely understandable by the author". This isn't even the name of the book, or the author. It's the name of the author's own publishing house. There's nothing at all salvageable from this article, and I have my doubts that an article on this subject could be written anyway. This has nothing to do with Japanese, by the way. The author apparently comes from Cape Town. Uncle G (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Dinky-Bloc

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

I've read and re-read this article about a dozen times so far and I'm no further on. It manages to not say what it is and not assert notability for whatever it turns out to be about. This might be poor translation from Japanese or even poor comprehension on my side, but I think we could live without this article. Your mileage may differ. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ will never be anybody's hero now 13:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete an earlier (speedied) version of the article revealed this is a completely non-notable company, a publisher with apparently only one extremely obscure book to its credit. It seems to have been re-created as a nonsense page, apparently to temporarily avoid being deleted again. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:47, 20 October 2008 (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.