Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic Images2

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 keep. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamic Images (second nomination)

Delete nn-company/advertisement. This was previously listed on AFD, but speedy deleted as spam before a discussion could proceed. It was then restored as part of a batch due to a larger challenge of the deleting admin's speedy deletions. So here it is again; let's give this one due closure. Postdlf 14:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as spam. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Their website has a lot of articles from magazines about what they do, and they appear to have been responsible for some fairly well-known ads as well. This is an issue for editing, not deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless it is fixed per BDJ's comments above before closure. In current form, it's a legit delete. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• It's a straight copy and paste of the "about" page on the company's web site. Speedily deleting this advertising and copyright violation was a good call. (Speedy deletion is no prejudice against a proper, sourced, article about the company, that isn't a copyright violation, being grown.) Uncle G 14:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Not anymore. I've rewritten it as a stub. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Cool. Nom withdrawn. Postdlf 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That doesn't affect in the slightest the fact that the original call was a good one. We don't keep copyright violations. Uncle G 15:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • If it was deleted as a copyvio, then yes, you're correct. That's no longer an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, it got caught up in a net cast a little too widely; see this DRV discussion. Postdlf 16:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Not that questioning any of those recent speedies was a bad idea, proper or not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as cleaned up by BDJ, article is now neutral in tone and no longer a spam concern. Yamaguchi先生 18:51, 10 October 2006
• Strong Keep. Meets the requirements for product notability. Original speedy was nonsense.Cynical 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per Yamaguchi先生. Vectro 04:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Highly notable and innovative media company. Easily meets WP:CORP. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 02:14, 13 October 2006 (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.