Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Studio boot


 * 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. — Aitias // discussion  16:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Studio boot

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

Contested Prod. No outside sources can be found using Google, mostly a self promotional article and author has COI as he is the inventor. Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (Duplicating Talk Page Post in Relation to Deletion Nomination) "NOTE TO WIKI: After reviewing the entire wikipedia website we feel this invention warrants being presented on Wikipedia with the other inventions, being it's the only one of it's kind. The invention is interesting and unique in a number of different ways. It's as creditable as any other description and invention on this site and we feel the general public should be able to read about these recent discoveries. Because it's a fairly new invention is no reason to deny the article. If someone wanted to read up about new midi devices and how they work, this would be what they are looking for and where they would look. We ask that you would consider our article as equal to others of the same stature. We understand this reply must be removed in order for the article to remain, therefore we will gladly remove it upon request." Added by author User:Kevin_Mixson to article. Rcurtis5 (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete--advertising. The claim made above of having reviewed the entire Wikipedia is a bit of a stretcher, and those readers (royal plural?) seem to have missed the fact that many articles on Wikipedia have references from reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Plausibly a db-spam speedy. Seems to be primarily advertising rather than any kind of neutral third-party-publication-based overview. I can't even find any evidence that this exists as an actual company; when I try, I find instead a different Studio Boot, some sort of design firm in den Bosch, the Netherlands, which is still not sufficiently notable. Fails WP:ORG. And the author's "warrants being presented" seems to exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia: we're not here to provide a soapbox for people to present new stuff, we're here to document what's already sufficiently well known. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: Spam. Joe Chill (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like spam to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:47, 25 July 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.