Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E3 Partners


 * 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. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

E3 Partners

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems to be more of a POV advertisement than an article Mcwatson (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe rename as Evangecube and trim drastically? Surprisingly, the 3x3 inch doodad E3 sells gets a lot of Ghits, so it may possibly be notable enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as spam, so tagged. No prejudice against a new page on Evangecube, however. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral after stubification, !vote may change again after further expansion. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Replaced with a stub. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * However, the stub as it stands now does not assert notability.  Pagra shtak  21:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Pagrashtak is correct. Too stubified. Bearian (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions.   —Fayenatic (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * An editor (with an apparent conflict of interest) has made some changes, but the article is not yet of encyclopedic quality. Perhaps someone else from WikiProject Christianity might now lend a hand. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I did some minor cleanup, but the article reads like an advertisement and uses second-person . It still doesn't assert notability.  Pagra shtak  19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleaned the second-person language.  Pagra shtak  21:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There doesn't look to be anything here that would help to create an encyclopedic article.  That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an article on the Evangacube which might well be notable but this still reads like a company press release.  Eluchil404 (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see anything noteable or noteworthy about this organisation that sets them apart from literally millions of others dong similar things for every religion. Plus it reads like it was written by an insider. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2007 (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.