Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlayGroundOnline

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. —SpacemanSpiff 03:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PlayGroundOnline

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

Not only is this a blatantly and damningly advertising and there's the history changes to show for it, consisting of nothing but advertising-only accounts and IPs, it's clear to say only the company would advertise themselves so specifically and blatantly. Next, the sources are all then, not only blatantly published by PR webhosts, but they are all listing the same things (advertisements), showing the only likely author was the company itself of course. To also show the sheerness, searches then found nothing but this said published advertising.

Once we start being lenient about accepting such blatant republished advertising, we start damaging ourselves because we're choosing to not even remove the simplest of advertisements. Especially also considering how long this advertisement has stayed, it only emphasizes the concerns and why we should remove such blatancy as fast as we can. Also note how this was unbelievably accepted instantly when it was submitted by the advertising-only account, but apparently no one cared to nominate until February 2014 in which the speedy was removed. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. pure advertisement. The awards are perhaps the most trivial ever asserted in a WP article. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam with no indications of notability or importance. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2016 (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.