Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rackonomics
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 - Nabla (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rackonomics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable neologism. Nakon 21:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also verges on spam, from the tone; note that the author is an SPA. Anturiaethwr 21:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anturiaethwr (talk • contribs)
- Delete. Only one unique Google hit, which appears to be a press release from the company. No reliable third party coverage evident. Nick Graves (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Neologism. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of sources and above reasons. Paradoxsociety (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom/WP:NEO. Staeiou (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable sources, created by a SPA, i'm pretty sure this is spam. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, advertising Ziggy Sawdust 15:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom as this looks to be a neologism without reliable sources to back it up. Bfigura (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Neologistic spam. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per above, WP:SPAM Gary King (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2008 (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.