Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Leapfrog Group

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 speedy delete. G12, copyvio. Mgm|^(talk) 11:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Leapfrog Group[edit]

Content is entirely taken (virtually verbatim) from the organization's website and is written in the tone of an advertisement or press release. The content comes entirely from User:LFG2008, who has made no other contributions. There are no references not generated by the group itself, and no references establishing notability. (It seems to me that this is a copyvio issue if nothing else, since there is no evidence that the user who copied this content from the site actually does work for the organization or has the right to republish the content, but the admin who removed my speedy apparently feels differently.) Propaniac (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is written as an advertisement, solely on Wikipedia to promote the Group. Possible copyvio issues as well. Tavix (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I declined the speedy, so I'd prefer that the AfD run its course. I didn't notice that it was a copyvio. Propaniac, do you want me to stub it in the meantime or do you think it was a bulk copyvio (where a {{Db-g12}} would apply)? Protonk (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This one is a blatant copyright violation -- clicking on the references easily confirms this -- and the article's creator, User:LFG2008 has the same acronym as Leapfrog Group (I have already made a report to WP:UAA). Ecoleetage (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G12 or G11) as blatant copyright infringement. I only had to click on a couple of the external links to find that the material was basically copy-and-pasted onto the article here. It's either a copyvio or, in the case the editor is the copyright holder, blatant advertisement; take your pick. MuZemike (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2009 (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.