Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DisSpam
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. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DisSpam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This piece of open-source software was tagged for speedy-deletion as blatant spam. I declined the speedy as I don't think it fits that criterion at all, but after searching for some references to clean up the article, it seems there has been little or no coverage in any reliable sources. Hence, it would appear to fail WP:V and WP:N. ~ mazca t|c 19:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — I can understand why the G11 was declined; it doesn't look like any blatant as far as spam is concerned. However, nothing can be found that can establish notability. MuZemike (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it doesn't look like blatant spam, then that's why it's been declined. Speedy deletion criteria are narrow and administrators are careful about deleting something that doesn't fit the criteria it's been tagged with. - Mgm|(talk) 09:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Then why does a lot of admins delete articles as nonsense when they don't fit that criteria? And why do a lot of admins delete articles as nonsense when they are not nonsense and they are tagged as something else? Schuym1 (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it doesn't look like blatant spam, then that's why it's been declined. Speedy deletion criteria are narrow and administrators are careful about deleting something that doesn't fit the criteria it's been tagged with. - Mgm|(talk) 09:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: DisSpam is spamming up dis wiki. Tavix (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2009 (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.