Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tairus


 * 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 keep the rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Tairus
First person advertising for a company making artificial gems. Was speedied in August. The person who reposted it today vandalised a couple of my pages first so I am allowing them an AfD debate to show them that it is not just my opinion. (Of course you may all vote "cleanup" - which would be equally OK.) -- RHaworth 07:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Obvious ad, non-notable.  Jasmol 07:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Withdrawing delete vote. Jasmol 15:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, advertising. --User:Angr/talk 07:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Keep Anetode's rewrite. --User:Angr/talk 13:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Alternatively redirect to Vladimir Gurov since that article has been accepted. -- RHaworth 07:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Spam.  Speedy if possible.  --Nlu 07:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC) In light of Anetode's revisions, neutral.  --Nlu 08:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep & Clean up per WP:CORP. Tairus appears notable in the field of gemology, see mentions at Gemological Institute of America's quarterly:, The company has also developed several gems that are sometimes prefixed with "Tairus" , meeting the genericization criterion. --anetode╔╝ 07:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I just rewrote the article, it's no longer spammy in tone. --anetode╔╝ 08:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep per Anetode's rewrite. - Mgm|(talk) 11:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I will only go as far as changing my vote to abstain and suggest that all votes above Anetode's comment should be ignored since it is a complete re-write. -- RHaworth 11:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ignoring them is no longer needed, they've all been changed in light of the rewrite. - Mgm|(talk) 20:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten. Just because a company posts its own Wiki entry doesn't mean that it lacks merit as an entry.  Jtmichcock 02:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but spamming should be a big mark against it. --Nlu 06:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Preaky 06:42, 20 November 2005 (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.