Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faithful Friend Yellow Lab T Shirt


 * 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Faithful Friend Yellow Lab T Shirt

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable t-shirt. It got some minor coverage in the USA Today and another source (see article) but nowhere sufficient to justify its own article.  So Why  09:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as spam. Without the clear promotional intent in the article, my recommendation would have been 'weak delete' on the basis of notability - there are two mentions in the press but neither article is significant in coverage. However, the article creator (and reported sock's) repeated placing of promotional text (a copyvio of a press release, eg ) warrant speedy deletion as spam. Note that the article has also been created as Faithful Friend Yellow Lab T-Shirt, Faithful Friend Yellow Lab and 'Faithful Friend Yellow Lab (all deleted; the first two deleted as spam and salted). RichardOSmith (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as purely promotional material. Also, I searched for sources using the links at the top and found nothing. If any more sources are found I may reconsider my position.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 18:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per above. -- Joaquin008  ( talk ) 19:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The creator's intentions are irrelevent when assessing whether the article is promotional. The current revision does not read like spam. However, the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources (the USA Today article is merely trivial coverage) does not warrant an article for this T-shirt. Goodvac (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The creator and first sock have been blocked but further new accounts and IPs have put the copyvio / spam back again twice more since you made your comment. I do not intend to edit war with them, so rather than remove it again I have instead tagged the article for speedy deletion this time. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete This page is pretty much a copyright vio. The copyright status is confirmed too.  G12 it.   EBE123  talkContribs 18:52, 29 May 2011 (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.