Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Email marketing best practices

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 speedy delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email marketing best practices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide Scapler (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Peridon (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (G11) as pure spam. This is a direct copy of [1], in which it was created by JCNetMarketing (talk · contribs), who has just been indef-blocked as a spam-only account. MuZemike (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wiki not a howto guide or a tool for promotion. Also, possible copyright violation.--Boffob (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am assuming the creator of the article is the copyright holder (obvious COI), so that's why I didn't include G12 under my !vote. MuZemike (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as spam. Grsz¹¹ 16:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. This is spam and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.  LinguistAtLarge  17:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I declined the G11 speedy request and edited out the link farm at the end to take care of the spam issues. No opinion (yet) on deletion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a direct copy-and-paste from the website I noted from above. This either 1) completely fails WP:NOT#WEBHOST or 2) if the person is not the copyright holder, is blatant copyright infringement. I still claim spam as the article is designed to try to exploit Wikipedia SEO capabilities for corporate gain. MuZemike (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note — the article's creator has been indef'd as a spam-only account. MuZemike (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - G11 added. — neuro^(talk) 03:16, 16 December 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.