Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Give and get selling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 of the debate was delete. Sango123 17:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Give and get selling
Biased orignal research. No relavent google hits. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 04:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as original research. This reads as an advert for a self-improvement service rather than an encyclopedic concept. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I can find no relevant sources for this concept. DrunkenSmurf 14:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - not even sure I can find the concept, never mind sources .. BJAODN, anyone? Ace of Risk 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: patent nonsense and spam. It never explains what it purports to be about. Smerdis of Tlön 15:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Not patent nonsense so not speediable. Spam is not a speedy criterion. Please chose an ordinary delete or specify a criterion to speedy it under. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Patent nonsense includes stuff that is "so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." This rubbish is worse than that, it's deliberate obfuscation. The author does not mean to give away his tawdry secrets under the GDFL, so he submits an article that's full of puffery but that never gets to a point. I think that fairly falls within the criterion. Smerdis of Tlön 21:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Not patent nonsense so not speediable. Spam is not a speedy criterion. Please chose an ordinary delete or specify a criterion to speedy it under. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kershner 07:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete with all possible vengence. It's nothing but a bunch of corporate babble. Certainly seems like patent nonsense to me. --UsaSatsui 06:13, 26 June 2006 (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.
