Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pownce

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, A7 and advertising. >Radiant< 10:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pownce

Pownce (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Previously speedy deleted as spam. While on DRV, where all opinions were to endorse the deletion, the article was recreated. This is advertising about a non-notable website. The article about the parent company, Megatechtronium, has been deleted twice now. Corvus cornix 20:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Salt it, because I'm barely restraining myself from doing so. It's been meets A7 and G11, and it's also on DRV with consensus leaning very strongly to endorsing the deletion. Клоун 20:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a "salt it" for you: shut up with your stupid AFD tags! Honestly, you people? Don't you have better things to do than go about deleting stuff on AFD????? Sheesh! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete, but don't salt It can be recreated once it gets more notable (i.e., on the level of Myspace and Facebook).Blueboy96 21:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly a valid AFD criteria. Fix the bloody thing, don't delete and recreate. Bloody hell! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete A consensus has been reached in DRV and I must support it. (Ke5crz 21:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

• Delete and salt: not notable, no reliable sources at all, borderline spam, still a good speedy candidate. The DRV isn't complete yet, but no valid arguments for undeletion have been offered. It's fairly obvious that this will keep getting recreated unless we salt it. If it ever does get more notable, than a new review can be opened to petition for unsalting. Xtifr _tälk 23:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Wait for the DRV no point in two processes at the same time. The only indication of notability at this point is the founder--but that might just be significant.DGG (talk) 01:16, 9 July 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.