Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure cirkus


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Pure cirkus
Reason being Vanispamcruftisement; mostly the "spam" and "isement". It was tagged for speedy deletion a while back, but the tag was removed with an unclear edit summary , and with no further explanation on the talk page. Since then, it has been edited by User:Purecirkus and put in the first person. Purecirkus's only two edits have been to this page. The article is clear advertisement. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 23:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I can barely tell what this is supposed to be. Danny Lilithborne 23:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and for non-notability. Tevildo 23:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, per nom. Note that what User:Purecirkus added was a copyvio of (everything after the first paragraph copyed from entry #11 in the source). I have reverted to the last version before him. May change vote to keep if mentions of this company from reliable sources are listed. Kimchi.sg 00:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Tevildo. Inner Earth 14:16, 21 June 2006 (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.

I want to know why you all deleted my Circus from this?