Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlanGuru


 * 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. and salted JForget  01:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

PlanGuru

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

This article has already been deleted once. I believe that this should not change since the article is a blantant advertisment. Cheers V. Joe (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know. V. Joe (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an unbiased article about a relevant software product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennyp22 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)  — Dennyp22 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete and salt. This obvious advertisement for a non-notable software product has been re-created and deleted four times already. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * An article being deleted 4 times is not grounds for another deletion. The article has been fundamentally rewritten from the previous articles. I made the necessary changes and followed all of the recommendations of the admins and other users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennyp22 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just so. But it is still a blatant advertisement. As for a re-edit, parts of the article are letter perfect to the old article. Also, please sign your talk-page contributions with your signature (4 tildes) ~ V. Joe (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: clearly advertising intended to promote.  It should go, regardless of the coi spa's protestations to the contrary. — Athaenara  ✉  00:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt. User repeatedly recreates the article claiming it not to be Spam/advertising when this is obviously not the case. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 04:10, 5 August 2009 (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.