Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brand Aid Design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 G11, blatant advertising. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brand Aid Design

Brand Aid Design (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Clear & Blatant Advertising for a company and non-enyclopedic / Author removed speedy delete and PROD tags SkerHawx 20:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, I was just about to delete the large amount of copyright-violation material that was in the article which would have left a minimal amount of content, but the user has blanked the page, and it has now been marked for speedy deletion as such. If it comes back and we have to go through the whole process, speedy delete G11 - it's spammy and the company doesn't appear to be notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's back ... SkerHawx 20:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yay. *gets out the copyvio axe* Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Great work Tony Fox in removing the copyvio content from the article. :D AngelOfSadness talk 20:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's like a hydra, though -- you chop it off and it magically reappears moments later. :-) SkerHawx 20:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • What we have here, is a failure to communicate... Tony Fox (arf!) 20:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems to be very true with this user. I've had to place a hidden message in the article requesting to not place the hang on tag(Hang-ons are only for CSD articles) on a Afd marked article. And so far it has worked. Let's hope for the best I guess AngelOfSadness talk 20:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • (After EC)The info has been restored by the user who created the article after they blanked the page three times. It appears that the user wants to discuss the articles deletion on the on the article's talk page. The article itself looks like advertising by a company which hasn't asserted it's significance in the article. Therefore should be deleted unless it can be greatly improved. It also appears we might have a clear COI debate on our hands see article talk page again for details AngelOfSadness talk 20:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Spam, spam, wonderful spam. The creator seems to be trying to exploit loopholes on the talkpage to keep this alive (I'll post [unsourced material] to [website affiliated with company] then cite it as a source...etc). Also appears to be a conflict of interest and the creator is hinting at the fact that PR made him create this. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (probably even speediable several ways) as non-notable (marginal assertion, no cites) spam by a spammer trying to game the system. Concur with strong COI problem, but this thing seems deletable on so many levels I'm not sure we need to worry about COI in particular. DMacks 21:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete there's too many things wrong with this article that it might be beyond help. The spam, advertising, veribility, COI and non-notable problems make it seem like a pretty good candidate for a few CSD's. Take your pick I guess AngelOfSadness talk 22:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertisement for non-notable company (no sources proving notability provided). OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The current version of the page (now that the copyright violations have been removed) would qualify for G11 if the AfD process had not already begun. Existence of a COI is a reason for extra scrutiny though not a reason for deletion by itself. User:Brandaid's frivolous and POINTy nominations of other articles for deletion, like Matrox, Radar Networks and Squared Designs invite a block for disruptive editing. EdJohnston 01:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Not withdrawing my previous concern about inappropriate nominations, but Squared Designs is now undergoing a genuine good-faith AfD, nominated by a different editor. I left Brandaid's AfD tag on Matrox since I don't feel bold enough to remove it. EdJohnston 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Obvious, non-notable spam. - Jehochman Talk 03:07, 2 October 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.