Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Suzhou


 * 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 speedily deleted, per WP:CSD. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Microsoft Suzhou

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No references. Orphaned. The section "Introduction" reads like an advertisement, while the sections "Intelligent Future" and "Product Family" are not specifically about "Microsoft Suzhou". Please see Articles for deletion/Microsoft Suzhou Office, same article, concerns still not addressed. And is likely the same person as. Timmyshin (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Timmy, you seem to be bringing a number of articles to Afd of late that could be more simply handled via speedy deletion. In this case, if it is the "same article" as the one deleted at the previous Afd, why not speedy it as such? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I already did, but User:Ronhjones declined it. Timmyshin (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, somehow missed that. Sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just for info - the deleted version had one single line of text (plenty of pictures) - G4 does say "is substantially identical to the deleted version", which clearly it is not. Ron h jones (Talk) 15:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That may be what the article was when it was deleted, but at least at one point it was substantially identical to this article. Perhaps User:JohnCD who posted this removed some text before it was deleted. Timmyshin (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- as per the previous discussion & an unreferenced essay. Wikipedia is not a recruitment brochure. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Still non-notable and unsuitable for encyclopedia for lacking substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Anup   [Talk]  17:04, 12 November 2016 (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.