Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Readability Studio
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 of the debate was Delete.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Readability Studio
Copyvio from the official website plus just advertising for non-notable product. Ben W Bell talk 07:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, balarseebatindowot sjsEEEEEEEble neebs. And furthmore: eeerggreedd loblob. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ohyes, this meets criteria for speedy deletion A8. -> Noncontroversial, blatent Copyright infringement without a non-infringing history on the article. I need sleep. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Actually, it doesn't because the source is not a commercial content provider, and as Fuhghettaboutit pointed out, the article is older than 48 hours. -- Kjkolb 13:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I really shouldn't edit at 2:00 in the morning. Really. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Actually, it doesn't because the source is not a commercial content provider, and as Fuhghettaboutit pointed out, the article is older than 48 hours. -- Kjkolb 13:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ohyes, this meets criteria for speedy deletion A8. -> Noncontroversial, blatent Copyright infringement without a non-infringing history on the article. I need sleep. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete "The following article is an "infomercial" -- a commercial message from its maker". Can you get any more blatant than that? The article does not, however, appear to be a candidate for speedy under A8 as it was not posted within the last 48 hours.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, pure spam. -- cds(talk) 22:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, I wish that was in the criteria for speedy deletion, but it's not as it's far too vague and easy to misinterpret. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: the copy is unreadable. Enough said. --die Baumfabrik 02:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I have to say that it was nice of them to tell us in the opening paragraph that the article is an infomercial. GentlemanGhost 04:26, 4 June 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.
