Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMSN


 * 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 as an advertisement. An article being the "only article on the subject" does not justify it being an advertisement. --Core des at 04:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

EMSN


Article was marked as db-spam and was deleted, but the original author contests its deletion, and so I am nominating this article for AfD, with no vote on my part. Tangot a ngo 06:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Spam. TJ Spyke 06:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Regular delete since a sysop is kind enough to let us comment, but this still fails WP:SOFTWARE by a mile or ten. Kavadi carrier 07:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 07:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kavadi carrier. utcursch | talk 12:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that this fails WP:SOFTWARE, but remember that it is currently only a proposed policy. Keep it at least until (if ever) this becomes an actual policy.  Kurt Weber 21:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I obviously think it should be kept... 'cuz, you know... I made it and stuff. And I do believe having an "advertizing" article is better than not having an article at all on the subject. Gothic Embrace 15:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:SOFTWARE InvictaHOG 04:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment All these people who are saying "Delete per WP:SOFTWARE" need to clarify what they mean. Are they saying that they agree with the rationale on WP:SOFTWARE as to why articles not meeting the criteria listed there need to be deleted, or are they simply saying that it needs to be deleted since it violates WP:SOFTWARE, regardless of whether or not they agree with it.  If it's the latter, then that argument is completely bogus as WP:SOFTWARE is not policy!.  The former is somewhat more reasonable, but still, the fact that it's not policy but only a proposed policy which may or may not pass should give one pause when invoking it.  Why not wait and see if it becomes policy, and act then, rather than delete an article which under current policy is perfectly acceptable?  Why remove perfectly good content (and risk pissing off a potentially valuable contributor) because of something that's not even policy yet?  It's ridiculous.  Kurt Weber 20:07, 7 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.