Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PR@vantage


 * 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. Wizardman 03:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

PR@vantage

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete No notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete/Strong Delete. Totally biased corporate spam, zero point zero on notability scale, weasel words a-plenty. Ψν Psinu 19:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * AfD Listing was incomplete, added AfD to Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 27. Improbcat (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rewrite It's a stub, it mentions an award, if sourcing could be found for this... but right now it's an advert.  Thin boy  00  @857, i.e. 19:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: no assertion of notability per WP:N and possibly WP:SPAM. Mh29255 (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reads like a PR agency decided to put together a page, so blatant advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.muller (talk • contribs) 23:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep as it is written too spammy, and has no cites, but may be notable based on its almost 8,000 Ghits:, many of which are reviews and news of rewards. (I know, that's not a strong argument, which is why I wrote Very weak.) Bearian (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Spamvertisement. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:14, 30 December 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.