Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinful Playmates

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 snowy delete. Sango123 03:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sinful Playmates

Non notable business, what little text there is reads like an ad (" formed by partners with over 12 years of experience"), speedy deletion tag war going on, so I'm bringing the matter here Equendil Talk 00:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong speedy delete Marketing abuse of wikipedia. Warnings should be issued to the article creators Bwithh 00:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note Author's strategy here seems to be the all too usual removal of the AfD notice on the article [1]. Equendil Talk 00:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note/FYI: Author has been blocked for 48 hours for this behavior. Hbackman 04:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Adspam. nn biz. Crum375 00:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. One reason for Speedy Delete is to beat the Google scraper. Some ad spammers may hope to get scraped into Google before getting deleted. Crum375 00:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, blatent advertisment. -Whomp 00:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam isn't a speedy deletion criteria. Perhaps lacking an assertion of notability under WP:CORP should be but isn't. Capitalistroadster 01:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• The image seems to be copy-vio. Crum375 01:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• The image might be fair use, in context. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement--El aprendelenguas 01:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - advertisement. Taylordonaldson 03:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. Hbackman 03:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this guy is persistently inserting spam links into a bunch of adult entertainment articles, which doesn't endear his main NN article to me one bit. Spinolio 04:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User should be blocked indefinitely then Bwithh 16:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and protect as re-creation. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, spam, no assertions of notability. MaxSem 09:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and probably speedy as being little more than a collection of links. Just zis Guy you know? 12:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete blantant advert. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 13:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blatant abuse of Wikispace. Adverstising. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. (I looked at the web site :) ). No evidence of the existence of the business other than the web site itself, and one advertisement in an adult business "directory". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. --Terence Ong 14:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no establishment of notability --Bachrach44 16:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Guinnog 18:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mr Stephen 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable business, spam. Grandmasterka 03:38, 6 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.