Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:FalloutChick40/sandbox

 __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: delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

User:FalloutChick40/sandbox

 * , see Articles for deletion/Helping Hands Care and Nursing at Home
 * , see Articles for deletion/Matthew Lee Morgan
 * , see Articles for deletion/Barbara Devlin
 * , see Articles for deletion/Alvexo

Native advertising created by a CU confirmed sockfarm and explicitly rejected in mainspace. MER-C 14:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - no need to retain sockfarm promotional content that's been deleted from mainspace already &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable businessman who does not inherit undue notability (per WP:NOTINHERITED) from companies he is involved with. Also created by a sock editor, very likely for pay.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - We don't need crud created by sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * keep This seems to be a draft about the business, not about the founder. Content on the founder should be edited down, content about the business increased. Who created the draft should not matter. The business may be notable, if the statements in the draft are accurate, although better souring would be needed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Celwoterpea Its the only I checked, but the dude fails GNg anyway. cinco deL3X1 ◊distænt write◊  18:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete the AfDs have spoken. Had these been properly redirected they would be gone now. Legacypac (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete all, per their AfDs, and due to sock puppetry. Note all are promotional, although not at a CSD#G11 level. I believe that promotional topics should require the onus put on the author to provide sources demonstrating that WP:CORP is met, or the page is deleted by default. Wikipedia attracts promotion so strongly.  I am not sure that “native advertising” is a deletion reason, has this term recently appeared in a guideline or essay somewhere?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See Native advertising, WP:NOHIDDENADS and . MER-C 11:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So it’s all real world stuff.  “Native advertising” lacks the expected pointedness of an internet term.  How about we write it up as “devious advertising”?  Putting a warning on a user talk page about “native advertising” just doesn’t have much punch. Conflict_of_interest, “covert advertising” works, better than either of the two linkboxed shortcuts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, the phrase "native advertising" sounds harmless and lacks force, but means "advertising masquerading as a native service or product". It means that the advertisement is a wolf in a sheepskin-and-wool coat.  Yes, it means "covert advertising" disguised as a "native".  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as per everyone above me who have said everything that needs to be said. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:26, 26 June 2018 (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.