Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mullaways Medical Cannabis

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. Secret ^account 03:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mullaways Medical Cannabis[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by company. (See creator) Creator blocked for promotional username. Creator made other promotional edit before blocked. Just promotional all around. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "Relevant Media Articles" section more than demonstrates notability, but the rest of the page.... ugh. I wonder if it might be better to just delete and recreate from scratch—it looks like there could be a very interesting article buried in there. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 19:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pure promotion with no encyclopedic value. None of this is supported by reliable independent sources, no could it ever be. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow. I thought I'd seen some incredibly bad attempts of promotion and deception but this has to take the cake. An over the top mixture of promotion, original research, synthesis, bad references, deception and coatracks. Sources that don't verify claims. Masses of unreleated claims, vanity central. Seppedy Delete as pure promotion, and with the inflated puffery and original reseach almost as a hoax. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A perfect example of why it's too early to worry about notability when self-promotion is the problem. This business might be notable, but none of this should even be visible in history. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsalvageable spam. I also note taht some of the article copied from [1] so also a copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a promotion to me as well. If there is some notability to the business, then I would say feel free to recreate, but there is no way that something useful is going to come of the incarnation. Not at least without a ton of work (in which case recreating would be the best bet). Zell Faze (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a mess to sort through. I couldn't make it even a 1/4 of the way through with out having WP:ADVERT alarm bells ringing. A lot of it appears to be WP:OR despite its attempt to be well referenced. Mkdw ^talk 08:56, 21 April 2013 (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.