Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directive Communication

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 --JForget 00:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Directive Communication

Spam article, disguised as psychology, created by notorious wikispammer Arthur Carmazzi, whose WP:AUTO is up for deletion below. Qworty (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as advertising. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think it's boastful enough to be speedied as advertising, and it seems to be more about a theory than an organization, so it doesn't qualify under A7 either, but I don't see any assertion of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Speedy delete", I think its just an advertisment for the other article, and both should be removed. Plus it has no references Callelinea (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete spamvert. csloat (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my name is Marcie Coldwell, PR executive for Mr. Carmazzi, founder of the Directive Communication methodology. i would like to clarify that Direcitive Communication is a "Methodology", it is used by many consultants and speakers throughout Asia, NOT only Mr. Carmazzi, it is implemented mostly in multi-nationals across Asia, although there are a few in Europe and North America. also, it is in my opinion slanderous to refer to Mr. Carmazzi as a "notorious wikispammer", we are doing a job to inform the public of "Proven" methods in organisational change and training, this makes us no money or helps us to sell books or porduct, true, it is PR, and then so is everything that mentions any new idea that is not from someone who is dead. as stated below, we made every attempt to make these and all other entries as objective as possible to maintain the Wikipedia standards and respect its intention. and, as for refferences, we added the references in accordance with the request that was posted a few days ago. Carmaz (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As admitted astroturfing PR spam. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your goods and/or services. If that's what you think Wikipeda is for, then don't let the door hit you on the way out, because you're not welcome here. Interesting response from User:Lawong on the talk page. Invoking Godwin's Law on his first ever edit. Well done. Only edits ever have been to that talk page. Hmm. DarkAudit (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM. archanamiya · talk 23:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article? it was information about a methodology, no promotion, only information and method and how the method is used. Please see my comments below pertaining to "PR", Marcie. Carmaz (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I read the article. I read the response on the talk page where the person who had never before contributed compared us to the Nazis in the first line of his first ever edit. I have read your admission that you work for the man and his company. That is conflict of interest, no other way around it. Look at what you yourself said, "we are doing a job to inform the public of "Proven" methods in organisational change and training, this makes us no money or helps us to sell books or porduct, true, it is PR". Wikipedia is not that place. It needs to be established elsewhere first. You've offered no proof that it has been covered in reliable, verifiable sources that are independent of the subject. It's also extremely odd that so many paragraphs have been written in defense of these two articles, yet the articles themselves are still only one-line stubs. DarkAudit (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carmaz is a sock of the spamming ISP. I have provided the evidence at the related AfD: [1]. Qworty (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2008 (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.