Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketsmith

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 speedy delete G11. - Mailer Diablo 16:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marketsmith[edit]

The article reads like a buzzword-filled piece of promotional material which fundamentally requires massive rewriting to qualify as an encyclopedia article. At the very least, it probably violates WP:NPOV to an extent that it the article probably shouldn't be left there whilst being cleaned up. Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. No redeeming value. --J2thawiki 19:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems to have been created as a promotional aid for the now deleted Marketsmith, Inc. by the same author. --J2thawiki 19:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The author, User:Susan Wernick, is the name of the Director of Communications at Marketsmith, Inc., as seen here. Perhaps this should just be a CSD and not AfD. Any thoughts? -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 19:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there issues with putting both AfD and CSD on an article? I'm not too clear on it. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 20:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's allowed. If an article has been submitted to AfD but it turns out to actually be a candidate for speedy deletion, the appropriate speedy tag should be added to the article (besides the AfD tag), and if the article is speedied, that will cut the AfD discussion short. --Metropolitan90 05:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Delete It lacks sources to establish the notability of the term, but it's also written in an informal tone that sounds like spam. The situation that J2thawiki noticed sounds plausible. Leebo ^T/C 19:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant advertising. The Conflict of Interest issues worry me as well. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 20:23, 27 March 2007 (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.