Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nutricosmetic


 * 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. still falls under G11  L'Aquatique   [  talk  ] 07:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nutricosmetic

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

Originally tagged for speedy G11, but the promotional material was then removed by the creator. What is left is a dicdef that asserts no notability. Delete.

Also nominating:

 Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 04:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed. I just G11'ed another article by the same user. J.delanoy gabs adds  04:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Nutricosmetic Pill as WP:NEO and WP:DICDEF (and an ad); less sure about Nutricosmetic/Nutricosmetics which may be viable if the advertisements are removed, so weak keep on them (redirect one to the other). JJL (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see why I'm confused. The three articles all lead to the same AfD.
 * Delete as spammy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding the article that used to be less spammy, would a better approach be to seek Admin action regarding the editor creating these unreferenced advertisements? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I put two of the three up for speedy. Is it better to let the AfD run its course? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:53, 20 November 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.