Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W3leaf.com


 * 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 - This doesn't have any chance it will be kept, only keep is probably the author of the article signed out. '''. GB fan 03:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

W3leaf.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable, advert for a website. CSD tags removed 4x by creator, 1x by IP. GregJackP  Boomer!   11:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not a self promotional page. This page is created to provide people with accurate information of what the website is all about and what's its purpose. It might seem like an advert, but the intention is not self-promotion. It is only to create an informational page for the website. In due course of time, more details will become available for this website and the content can be verified. (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 203.35.135.171 (talk • contribs)


 * speedily delete Utterly promotional text. Mangoe (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete – qualifies for criteria A7 for speedy deletion, as the article doesn't claim importance at all. Also, my searches failed to find any indication of notability. Klilidiplomus+Talk 12:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with whoever put speedy tags on this five times; there is no notability here and none found upon a search.  There are no reliable sources.  Given the history, I understand why this is at AfD, as a necessary preliminary to WP:SALT.  Ubelowme U  Me  12:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per A7 and G11, as my original tags indicated (Ubelowme, that was me, not that it matters.) I don't think this really needs to be at AfD, but no worries. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 12:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I know from experience that it takes extra time and effort to keep returning and replacing the tags in the face of someone who's not playing by the rules, so well done on that.  I also think I understand the train of thought that brings it to AfD and agree with it; kind of overkill, in some respects, but it makes sure there's an end to the process.  Ubelowme U  Me  13:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. My thoughts on going to AfD are simple - based on my experience, if someone repeatedly removes CSD tags, they are likely to repeatedly reintroduce non-encyclopedic articles.  By doing an AfD, it allows any reintroductions to be speedily deleted and starts the record to salt the article name, if necessary.   GregJackP   Boomer!   13:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - Non notable website, and entirely self promotional. Rorshacma (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - As others have said, the website is not notable at all (with an alexa rank of 7 million!). I think it also counts as Advertising. - Willrocks10  Speak to me  20:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy as spam. Hairhorn (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete seems like an Ad to me ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣  Talk Email 00:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Pile-on delete. Promotional. To quote, "It's a good way...", which is not encyclopedic. --Mysterytrey 00:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, should have been speedied. Non-notable and unsalvagable spam. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Unnotable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non notable and promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - surely qualifies as both A7 and G11. --bonadea contributions talk 09:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - Obvious reasons. Not notable Harsh (talk)  19:02, 14 September 2012 (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.