Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truespel

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. Singularity 06:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The result was Speedy deleted as hopelessly promotional, & I rarely speedy when at afd, but this is an instance where it's appropriate. DGG (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to undelete it and let the discussion proceed, so i will do so. Simpler to do that than have a deletion review. DGG (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Truespel

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

This article was previously deleted on a PROD [1] with the notation "One person's spelling crusade--which the rest of the world hasn't noticed, yet. No refs, no sign of notability or much in the way of Google hints, and published by a vanity press." The article was recreated and all of this is still true. The thing is a blatant advert. It should be salted this time. Qworty (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• G11 as blatant advertising. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per TPH as the poorly written, unsourced advert-spiel it is. Note also that the first entry in the history list is "submitted by the creator of truespel - Tom Zurinskas". On a side note, am I the only one who finds it ironic that the (apparent) marketing effort for this theory/process/thing is using truly atrocious grammar? Granted, the spelling is fine... Duncan1800 (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Blatant advertising. Nsk92 (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Clear example of advertising: look at the content DGG (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The content is entirely promotional. We are not provided with any commentary by outsiders on the significance of this idea. No reliable sources at all. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. As the editor who requested the (almost certainly temporary) undeletion, I am glad to see EdJohnston's comment, which hits the nail on the head in distinguishing between an idea and a product, and setting out the appropriate standards for evaluating the article on its own merits, or lack thereof. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Clear advertising and WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Its not notable at present. Article is also wholly unreferenced. Artene50 (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2008 (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.