Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thesis guidance package
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 was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thesis guidance package (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A prod tag was removed with no discernable improvement to the article. There is no evidence to suggest that this term is used by anyone except the company to which the article is/was linked; this is thinly-disguised advertising. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: If this deserves to go anywhere, its within Dissertation, where attempts to add it by same editor(s) have been rebuffed as spam. Google news and google books have no hits for "Thesis guidance package"--Milowent (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Only part of an elaborate spam-scheme on Dissertation to promote a website that sells these things. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. I don't see much evidence of spam, but it is clearly something along the lines of a definition of what this is. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this package. Joe Chill (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Seems that it was created solely as a platform for a spam link. It doesn't have any notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This doesn't need to go anywhere except out. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. The article's TALK page is particularly amusing. Seems the creator tries to preempt deletion with a helpful recommendation by a concerned editor, written in the same poor english as the article itself... --Whoosit (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.