Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PinStruck.com

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. MBisanz ^talk 13:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PinStruck.com[edit]

Unsure of notability - appears to be an advertisement. Sources/refs are the company's own website. Oscarthecat (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just beginning to create the page. I was hoping to document the history of the web site and it's parent company. Speedy deletion removed the content before I could even add the hangon tag or reply. -- User:Donjrude 11:40am (ET)

Ok, I am beginning to read through the article criteria and speedy deletion info. Also, looking at the page history I think the speedy deletion was added before I had even saved the initial content. I was trying to build the page with a style a content similar to Cafepress or pets.com. I will update the talk page with more updates as I explore the article criteria. -- User:Donjrude 11:56am (ET)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article is too 'advert like' and site appears to have very little if any claim to notability. Paste (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11/A7), take your pick - spam or no indication of notability. I would recommend that the creator userfy the article so it can be worked on until it is suitable for inclusion in the mainspace. MuZemike (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertisement like, not notable _David ^WS _(contribs) 19:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertisement. Also, no reliable independent source for notability.--Boffob (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, with current content it's not very notable. I completely disagree about blatant advertising (see cafepress) I don't really understand what is meant by userfy (yet), but I would appreciate other constructive criticism of this nature, rather than delete. -- Donjrude (talk) 21:23, 13 November 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.