Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fios, Inc.

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fios, Inc.

fails WP:SPAM. Pure advertorial. This deletion is related to the deletion nomination for Fertility retreat and for Novas Software, Inc. because it was created by the same editor, who appears to be conducting a wikipublicity campaign for these three organisations / people. The AfD was originally improperly listed as a bundled listing along with Fertility retreat. Fiddle Faddle 10:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. & advert. Rob 10:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dionyseus 10:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Just zis Guy you know? 10:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. And I doubt that this Gerald Massey, this Mary Mack or any of these Brian Roses work there. Robin Johnson 11:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• note please see comment from the article's creator on Talk:Fios, Inc. I've left a message on their talk page about the AfD process to make sure, as a relatively new editor, they understand the process. Fiddle Faddle 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP, as well as being part of an SEO campaign, or something equally reprehensible. Tevildo 17:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, There is no advertial tone in the entry whatsoever. If you take a look at the other entries I've created (due to knowing about their company) you'll see that those entires contain no sort of advertisial language whatsoever. This deletion, along with others, is being spearheaded by one user who feels as though I'm employing in some sort of "PR Campaigns" for companies. Please, I would request that each user take a look at the entry, others that are similar to it, and vote accordingly. Don't just read the rationale for deletion and vote. I assure you there is no sort of advertising going on here. If there were, then I would understand this unfair call-out to delete all of the entries that I've made. But, as you can see in the entry, I modeled after other similar entries. This entry is only up for deletion due to me having made entries in a short amount of time. Look through the entry, see that I'm not employed in any sort of "PR campaign" or advertial language, and vote accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amplifychristian (talk • contribs)
  • I have addressed this on my talk page as clearly as I am able. Please refer there. Fiddle Faddle 22:59, 14 July 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.