Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malicious job posts


 * 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. Magioladitis (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Malicious job posts

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

Basically a dictionary definition and unsourced potentially libelous statements, if an allegation of an example could be located. Unsourced, unsourcable, and a potentional WP:BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete--Nominator makes a good, succinct case. There is no merit whatsoever in the article. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Heck, the page creator makes a good, succinct case too (WP:NEO). As he explains on the talk-page: The Term does not exist therefore I am creating a "NEW" term. He then goes on to explain how the phrase is nothing more than the combination of the dict-defs of the words. Taken together with its talk-page, the whole thing is barely more than a walled-garden blatant attack page. DMacks (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. In addition to being a dictionary definition, it is almost certainly original research, and if the talk page content had been on the article page - I would have speedy-deleted as an attack page. I've archived the talk page to page history due to BLP concerns & a big chunk of copyvio text from dictionary.com. -- Versa geek  00:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Editor's other contribution, List of malicious job posting companies was speedy-deleted per A1/no-context, was another part of his swath of BLP content. DMacks (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's another: Malicious job post, a copy of the one under discussion with added 'references.' Drmies (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've deleted that one.. -- Versa geek  04:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, he wrote that one first, and it was speedy-deleted under G10. (Actually, without the list, it doesn't seem to me to be a G10, so....)  I restored it as a protected redirect to this one.  (And the first copy of each new version has had the list of "examples" / "references".) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. While the author makes a good point, it expresses a non-neutral point of view, and ridding the article of the POV would likely reduce the article to nearly nothing. I suspect the author was victimized by one of these posts. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Coming to Wikipedia to write one's personal conjectures about it isn't the answer. Getting a source published is.  And &mdash; Lo! &mdash; someone already has:
 * Uncle G (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to False advertising. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Uncle G (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to False advertising. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Uncle G (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to False advertising. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to False advertising. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:45, 23 October 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.