Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Praisebuildings

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Praisebuildings

WP:WINAD. Also, it's not so much a non-notable dicdef neologism as it is a veiled website advertisement. Compare 934 hits on Google for "praisebuildings" with 18 hits for "praisebuildings -praisebuildings.com" (6 of which are Wikipedia/Wiktionary). Delete. --Dmcdevit 05:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Transwikify to wiktionary -mysekurity 06:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • That is not a valid option, as it has already been transwikied. Uncle G 13:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• This is not a word, according to the Wiktionary criteria for inclusion. (Accordingly, I have nominated it for deletion from Wiktionary.) It's the trademark of a company that publishes a directory of other companies. The company appears to have no cultural significance. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Delete. Uncle G 13:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: spam, IMO. That could make it a speedy candidate, especially after the transwiki. WP is not a web guide, and the concept is too obvious to need explanation. (Watched Saved! last night.) Geogre 13:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dmcdevit. Fernando Rizo 22:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not-veiled-enough website ad. The term only scored 499 Googles, and is nicely dismantled by Uncle G. -Splash 22:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 08:15, 11 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.