Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Technomancer Press: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:54, 23 August 2007 editGavin.collins (talk | contribs)18,503 edits Add to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:11, 2 February 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(13 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''Delete'''. ] 04:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

===]=== ===]===
{{ns:0|O}}
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|O}}


:{{la|Technomancer Press}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> :{{la|Technomancer Press}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
This article's content is comprised of thinly disguised ''']''' promoting the company, whilst its products are listed in detail in the article body, the reference and external links sections. Strip away the self-promotion and the ], this advertorial fails to demonstrate ], which is yet to come. --] 16:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC) This article's content is comprised of thinly disguised ''']''' promoting the company, whilst its products are listed in detail in the article body, the reference and external links sections. Strip away the self-promotion and the ], this advertorial fails to demonstrate ], which is yet to come. --] 16:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>--] 16:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)--</small> *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>--] 16:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)--</small>
*'''Comment''' Funny how this made it to good article status then. ] 17:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
:Have they changed the way articles make it to "good" status recently? Because I have always thought of that process as absurdly subjective. One spam account creats an article and the next spam account awards it "good" status.-] 17:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
::And that might perhaps be why I noted it. ] 18:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Weak Delete''' in lacking coverage from reliable sources. Forums/etc are not reliable sources ] 18:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' GA does perplex me a little, because this is absurdly spammy. Doesn't mean a good article couldn't be written.''']''' (]) 05:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

<hr style="width:50%;"/>
:<span style="color:Chocolate;">'''Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.'''</span><br/><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{{1|— ]::''']''' 04:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)}}}</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->

*'''Weak delete''' While biased towards company, could be fixed by someone with knowledge of the field.] 04:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I see no evidence of notability. ] 05:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' - Even spam can be well-written! There seems to be an awful lot of detail written about the "products", just enough for the prospective buyer perchance? --] 05:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delete,''' well-written spam indeed. ] 08:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' While I agree that this is clearly spam, I'm not sure it should be deleted. The main problem is not the exiistence of the article or the notability of the publishing company, but the way it is presented. It could easily be rewritten in a more neutral and less promotional style and be acceptable. I'd suggest that the original author undertake such an effort and then let us judge it. --] 18:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 15:11, 2 February 2022

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. Carlossuarez46 04:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Technomancer Press

Technomancer Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article's content is comprised of thinly disguised spam promoting the company, whilst its products are listed in detail in the article body, the reference and external links sections. Strip away the self-promotion and the peacock language, this advertorial fails to demonstrate notabilty, which is yet to come. --Gavin Collins 16:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Have they changed the way articles make it to "good" status recently? Because I have always thought of that process as absurdly subjective. One spam account creats an article and the next spam account awards it "good" status.-Apollo58 17:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
And that might perhaps be why I noted it. FrozenPurpleCube 18:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk 04:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Even spam can be well-written! There seems to be an awful lot of detail written about the "products", just enough for the prospective buyer perchance? --WebHamster 05:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, well-written spam indeed. Realkyhick 08:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment While I agree that this is clearly spam, I'm not sure it should be deleted. The main problem is not the exiistence of the article or the notability of the publishing company, but the way it is presented. It could easily be rewritten in a more neutral and less promotional style and be acceptable. I'd suggest that the original author undertake such an effort and then let us judge it. --Hanging Jack 18:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
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.