Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Cell Imaging Labs
- 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. Tawker 04:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising (as per creators user name if nothing else). See also duplicate article now turned to redirects at DCI Labs, Dci labs and Dcilabs. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all: nn spamvertisements. --Hetar 21:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all of this spam! Grafikm_fr 21:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ad, non-notable —Veyklevar 00:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from author The background for putting DCI Labs here, was that the competitor, Cellomics, is here. Have a look at that site please, and tell me why that one is okay. Thanks. Martin, DCI Labs, 00:11, 22 April 2006 (CET) User:87.64.129.254
- Comment They claim to be the inventor of the technology, so that's a claim of notability. Being a competitor of the inventor of a technology is not a claim of notability. Also, the article is written as an encyclopedic entry about the company and its processes, rather than a huge free advertisement. Finally, the article is in one place and not dotted all over our encyclopedia, something that puts peoples' collective backs up as it is spamming, pure and simple. Hope this explains the differences. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Author Yes, that explains a lot. Thank you. 19:50, 22 April 2006 (CET) User:87.64.129.254
- 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.