Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clickthinking
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, not really speedy since it was relisted but quite evidently snow.. TravellingCari 01:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clickthinking[edit]
- Clickthinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Company is notable enough to pass CSD, however, obvious COI, I think this should be deleted, but recerated by someone who is not with the company Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak
keepDelete -I see it passes WP:N and WP:COMPANY, but not WP:NPOV. I don't think it should be deleted because it is in a POV COI, but it should just be reworded.Eh, fails WP:COI and WP:NPOV.--SRX 12:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. WP:COI is the issue for me here - it is essentially promotional. --Herby talk thyme 12:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:COI -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 12:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not just because of COI and spammy wording, but because the assertions of notability are incredibly weak and the verifiability of those assertions is weak to non-existent (calling an award prestigious doesn't make it so). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and suggest speedy delete as blatantly written in spam style. They offer strategic and web-based solutions. Can I get fries with that? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete G11 as spam. Would require fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. Fits the bill, I think. RayAYang (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, highly promotional wording. Off! (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reason to change my vote - why was it not deleted? --Herby talk thyme 11:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article fails to establish notability as prescribed at WP:COMPANY. Article is commercial promotion rather than written in an objective, independent style. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a trade directory. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 6 August 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.