Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wordsmith Media Inc.


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wordsmith Media Inc.

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Material appears to be promotional in nature. WP:NOTE criteria not met. Alan (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete g11 I wonder if there are American PR firms working the holiday thinking Wikipedia is on vacation and this is the time to sneak in their spam? Miami33139 (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Until recent weeks I wouldn't have believed that professional PR could possibly be so bad, but then I discovered that "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER" cost $250,000. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 5 Facts About Wikipedia You Don't Know! #6, Pays design firms rather than asking one of the thousands of volunteers who work for one. Miami33139 (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Apart from the above issue, I can see no particular notability in the subject. And there is no attempt to give any references to convince us. Personally, I would think this more amateur than professional PR. 'Excited' and 'inspired' instantly say 'this is spam', but the general comprehensibility falls below most of the professional PR that optimists keep trying to sneak in (while at the same time usually adopting a user name that is transparently obvious). Peridon (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The one supplied reference doesn't mention the company. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not even close to notable. Angryapathy (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't appear to have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Thus, it is not notable enough to merit inclusion.  Additionally, the wording of the article, as it currently stands, strikes me as POV.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  23:28, 30 November 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.