Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hancock Studios


 * 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. — Aitias // discussion  13:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hancock Studios

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

If this had just shown up, I would have agreed to the G11 speedy deletion, since it's an obvious attempt to sell porn, but since it's been around in roughly this form for 3 years (sigh), this requires AfD, I think. I just softblocked the company-promoting username of the article creator ... better late than never. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, although don't think a PROD would have been inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, this is an unresolved question. Does a 3-year history on Wikipedia mean all by itself that the deletion is likely to be contested by somebody, and therefore not suitable for a prod?  Some people say "don't bother us at AfD if you think you know that it's promotional", some people say "2 people shouldn't overrule the hundreds or thousands who saw this article and passed by without complaining, it should be a community decision".  I'd love to know the answer so that I ... and more importantly, the taggers ... feel confident in our decisions. - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that is a good reason for not using a speedy, but a PROD does give people time to object. AIUI if something is deleted via a prod and someone later contests it, it is routineley restored and brought to AfD anyway. This is however just my ha'penny's worth! Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (I originally nominated for speedy deletion). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.