Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advameg

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 deleted (4th deletion) by admin Physicq210 (reason: CSD G11 and possibly G1, since it seems like the company's HQ is so uncertain). Non-admin close of orphaned AfD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 04:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advameg

Delete. The article was originally prod-ded (by me) with the reason No need for articles on every Wikipedia spammer or vandal, and there are no outside sources that discuss it. The prod tag was removed with an edit summary of this is a real company with a top 3K Alexa rating - just so happens they spam too. It is in fact a real company, and Google lists over 10K results for the name. The Alexa ranking for city-data.com is just over 2,000. However, this article, as it stands, looks more like a "watch out for this company" warning than a legitimate Wikipedia entry. ... discospinster _talk 20:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep Why is this not a legitimate entry? Because it lists bad things the company has done? It also gives an inventory of its holdings, its place of incorporation and contact information. Seems legit to me. Don't think you're promoting a spammer just because you have an article on a company that spams. By your logic we should delete the Enron article too. Mjk2357 01:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Most speedy of deletes per A7 and G11. Auto-referential in any case, no notability asserted beyond its own spamming activity on Wikipedia. Ghits in the 10K but 36 unique! Spam spam spam... Pascal.Tesson 03:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Admin User talk:Firsfron has told me let this go through normal AfD as long as the first sentence was changed and the spam allegations were NPOVed, which they were. Pascal, if you had actually bothered to read the article it is not pro-Advameg by any means! In fact it was put up for AfD for being anti-Advameg, so reconsider your view. At any rate it is against policy to unilaterally delete articles with ongoing AfD. Mjk2357 03:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This article has now been zapped by three people, so I'm going to leave it deleted. However, since the reasons each deleter gave were totally different (and contradictory), should someone else want to re-create the article I believe pretty strongly that it should exist. The admin position is that it should go through normal AfD. The deleters have not been admins.

This company (Advameg) uses some pretty underhanded tactics, which were detailed in the article. They have left negative messages on the user page of someone who's been fighting their spam (not me). If you recreate this page be prepared for them to ask that you should be banned, etc. Good luck. Mjk2357 16:16, 25 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.