Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:209.209.140.19


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Speedy Closed already blanked, not blatant advertising. — xaosflux  Talk  03:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

User:209.209.140.19
clearly a ip from an advertising company, as listed on userpage, should be blocked to at least require spammers to register a name DUBJAY04 06:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. In case you're purposing to block the IP, please refer to WP:AIV. However, I'm concerned this IP will not be blocked as he received a final warning quite a while ago. Note that blocks should not be used as a punitive measure.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   14:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete This IP is most probably going to be used for spam and creation of irrelevant articles, if it's owned by a company then it may violate NPOV because it's owned by a company who may be contributig to articles about themselves. Telly   addict Editor review! 17:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, speedy delete an IP? Is that possible?  Michaelas10   (Talk)   17:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, the notice on the page is totally innocuous; all it says is that the IP is owned by an advertising company using a certain IP. It in no way promotes or SPAMs themselves or anything. It's no different from sharedip. The nominator reason also makes me strongly suspicious that this should be on ANI/AIV. Also note that deleting an IP addresses user/talk page in no way affects their ability to edit. 68.39.174.238 19:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * FFS just blank the damn page (now done) and be done with it. Speedy close this waste of time--Docg 22:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * doc g- I don't believe its fair to simply blank User:209.209.140.19 and not set forth the issue that this is an advertising company. Maybe i took it to the wrong place, but blanking it is not the solution. DUBJAY04 22:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Who cares? Are we doing this to "punish" someone? Doc is right, this is a waste of time, blank it and be done with it. -- Ned Scott 01:05, 10 February 2007 (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.