Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bio+Green Crystals
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bio+Green Crystals[edit]
- Bio+Green Crystals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promo piece for non-notable product (contested PROD) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have done a number of searches and have not been able to locate a single reliable seeming secondary source mentioning this product, much less providing substantive coverage. The sources in the article are all press release material.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Total spam about a non-notable product. Even the company that creates it does not warrant an article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: As per all reasons above. --Aspro (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-write in progress This was my first full article for Wikipedia, and I know I've got alot of work to do on it. I am currently in the process of writing an article for the company that produces the products - I just thought that writing about the product first would be easier. Now I know I should have done the company article first. I have received some constructive criticism about the language of the article and the "peacock" words which I am working on today.Jmasiulewicz (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When you say for the company, do you mean that you're acting on their behalf? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I made the originating editor aware here back in July of our COI policy because of the number of non encyclopaedic and unsuitable articles created due to jobbing sites like this: [1]. I don't know if he read it.--Aspro (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- Oh dear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I made the originating editor aware here back in July of our COI policy because of the number of non encyclopaedic and unsuitable articles created due to jobbing sites like this: [1]. I don't know if he read it.--Aspro (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- When you say for the company, do you mean that you're acting on their behalf? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More from author Once the article for the company is finished and posted, perhaps it would be best just to move the contents of this page to the company article page as a sub-heading.Jmasiulewicz (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would probably actually be best if you concentrated your professional writing on producing advertising copy for sites that welcome it, rather than trying to place it in an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.