Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enomalism


 * 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.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Enomalism

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

non notable, unverifiable advert created by company owner. probably should have been speedied already as spam (G11); also does not even attempt to claim subject is notable (A7). warning user for conflict of interest. WikiScrubber (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: From article's talk page:
 * Companies are not supposed to edit their own Wikipedia entries. It appears you created this page without attributing yourself. Either way, this article is problematic. -- Anthony Liguori 70.116.9.243 (Talk)
 * This article is blatant advertising for a paid product. 81.68.125.220 (Talk) 12:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have speedy deleted this one if I'd run across it patrolling new pages. It's a G11. Frank  |  talk  11:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as G11, confilct of intrest (pointed out in the nom), and non-notable. Basiclly, spam. Red  Thunder'  11:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Was looking for some sources. Found, which would be an excellent addition to article to counter PoV. Not enough to establish notability, but getting closer. Turlo Lomon (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional weak keep -, (be sure to look at all links - has some interesting statistical analysis on it).  presentation at infoworld  - i found this to be rather interesting for a open source project.  I believe the article is salvageable, but a lot of work needs to be done on it. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * POV is irrelevant. This link, like the article itself, reads like an advert and is not particularly notable as an opinion piece anyway. 193.253.141.64 (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete per Frank and RedThunder above. Even if interesting it's still not notable with the links above and there remains the conflict of interest. 193.253.141.80 (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please keep in mind that an article that has a an author with a conflict of interest is not a speedy deletion candidate because of that. Nor is COI a reason to delete an article at AfD. Frank  |  talk  12:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but it does establish that the article was created soley to advertise a commercial product and is thus spam (G11). Earlier versions were blatant copyvios too (G12). It's surprising it lasted this long given associated articles (Enomaly, Reuven Cohen) were already repeatedly deleted. WaikiScrubber (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Close as SNOW 3 x Speedy Deletes (plus nom) vs one weak, conditional keep (referencing a blog, a directory listing, a blurb about a quick demo and a lukewarm review of an ancient pre-release) and no votes in days. By the article's own admission it's still vaporware anyway. WikiScrubber (talk) 08:47, 3 September 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.