Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Auto Insurance Specialists: AIS Insurance

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy Delete. G-11ed. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric  12:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Auto Insurance Specialists: AIS Insurance


Persistently submitted through AfC; have been declined five times in the process and deleted through CSD twice (once by myself) as unambiguous advertising. The creator denies conflict of interest with the subject, even though simple Google search would demonstrate otherwise. Requesting short community input, thanks! Alex Shih (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Alex, and for God's sake block the editor for persistent TOU violations. John from Idegon (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I may not be the quickest to understand I have been attempting to improve upon it and I have. Please do not delete. I'll see if it's notable enough. If not, I won't resubmit. But please do not delete. Afarin Majidi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Afarin Majidi, answered on your talkpage at User_talk:Afarin_Majidi. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's advertising. -- Whpq (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, advertising. I've blocked the editor for not being here to improve the encyclopedia, but exclusively for the purpose of promoting Auto Insurance Specialists. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC).
 * Speedy delete. Blatant advertising.  All of the sources included are unreliable or non-independent.  Even if this company could be shown to be notable based on as yet unknown sources, it would have to be completely rewritten.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Alex Shih, User:Sulfurboy, I suggest you review WP:CSD with regards to advertising submitted as drafts, and how the failure of minimal sourcing means that nothing can be used, thus triggering G11. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote above or checked the deletion log? I have already deleted it once per G11. This is a draft being persistently re-submitted, so procedure wise, although unfortunately bureaucratic, is to have a short discussion here. Alex Shih (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry. "deleted through CSD twice (once by myself) as unambiguous advertising".  Hah, your even an admin.  Definitely delete.  Feel free to block the user if this is all he does ... which apparently is true, and he is already blocked.  Delete and Block.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.