Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L3MEDIA


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 14:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

L3MEDIA

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article does not meet the primary inclusion criterion for notable companies: it has not been treated as a subject in reliable secondary sources. The claims in the article cannot be verified from reliable secondary sources, and removing the unverifiable claims would leave an article that would meet speedy deletion criterion A1: little or no context. Finally, the original author of the article,, appears to be an astroturfing organization similar to MyWikiBiz; if true, this would violate the conflict of interest guideline. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete agree mostly with nom. There isn't even a clear assertion of notability here. -SpuriousQ (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and encourage an admin to look into the article's creator more closely. --Haemo 07:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Related to AfD: Philip R. Odegard. Adraeus 08:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Same reasons as for Philip Odegard article above. It's spam, even if it's a thin slice of it. Realkyhick 04:00, 29 March 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.