Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thalir


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 11:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thalir
Advert/spam for nn company. Rob 11:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good info about the book —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.65.49.240 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-14 07:20:40 (UTC)


 * This seems to be good information about the book, is pretty helpful in giving a brief idea on the contents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.123.182.26 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-14 07:51:52 (UTC)


 * Yes, good info about where I can buy the book - point taken. But nonetheless this is a spam. It is asking you to decide to buy the book and telling you where from. It even lists how much the darn thing costs. If I look up 'Gone with the Wind', I can find a lovely article, but not that I can purchase it from Amazon for $9.95-. If the article contained detailed info about what the stories were about, then maybe. But as far as I can see, this is spam, pure and simple. Of course, the great thing about AfD is that I'm simply asking for a Delete. Everyone can have their say etc. Please vote for a Keep if you disagree that the article is spam. Thanks for your comments. Rob 12:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete written like an advertisement, Thalir magazine only gets 1 g-hit to a forum so probably not notable either.-- Andeh 12:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete possible failure of WP:CORP, crashes and burns while trying to pass WP:SPAMWilyD 13:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a massive failure of WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not free ad space. --DarkAudit 14:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * [10:30 EST] * Consider Edit instead of delete. If it is considered advertising, why don't you suggest editing the article instead? -NS, State College, PA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.16.236 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Maybe wiki should just start selling ad pages to subsidize costs [facetious, of course] Mystache 16:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Heavy sigh per Mystache, and I suspect it would work, too.  Tychocat 17:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to DELETE- Article edited to remove the advertising contents like email and how to buy the book etc. Hope that it will be satisfy most people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandith (talk • contribs) 2006-07-14 23:54:41  (UTC)
 * Better, but it is still encouraging people to buy the book, i.e. spam. I would vote to keep if the article simply indicated who published the book, when it was published, a synopsis, the contents (which is currently fine), critical reviews maybe etc. Place an external link for the company who published. Unfortunately, IMHO, the last section 'why you should buy the book' / 'why you shouldnt' is a dead give away as to why this is still spam. Rob 04:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to DELETE-All the advertising content is removed. Only informaiton remains. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandith (talk • contribs) 2006-07-15 00:50:38 (UTC)
 * Struck out. You cannot vote more than once. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Even after the edits, the article still reads as a promotion for the website. Also fails WP:VAIN as one of the representitives of that website even wrote and signed the introduction section.  Resolute 05:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to DELETE-in this form. It is just the information about the book now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandith (talk • contribs) 2006-07-15 02:58:24 (UTC)
 * Struck out. You cannot vote more than once. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Still clearly spam.  Tox 07:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, still reads like promotion. The subject of the article doesn't appear notable in itself anyway. -- Kinu  t /c  18:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * These attemps should be encouraged and a oppurtunity to give info on the book will be gr8 help for the budding writers of the book. so should NOT BE DELETED. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.223.163.5 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-18 07:52:44 (UTC)
 * Delete as vanity-spam-riffic. It is, however, an excellent use of WP syntax, formatting and style so kudos to the editors.  -- MrDolomite | Talk 20:42, 18 July 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.