Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swimage encore Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swimage_encore

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swimage encore

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hate to rush to AFD so quick after creating, but this is just MS spam. One of the references had nothing to do with the article (deleted), another one triggers the "Warning Will Robinson" filter in Google Chrome for malware, the rest is whitepapers and MS's own site. Not notable marketspeak. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-notable software component that has spam written all over the place. Tinton5 (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11 →Σ τ c. 01:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I hate yanking a speedy tag, particularly when you are right, but I sent it here because of the "appearance" of sources, and a decision at AFD makes it simpler to CSD when it gets recreated (and this stuff tends to). Recreating and just removing the promotional aspects would mean starting over with the process when you Speedy via G11 (A7, not so much). That, and the AFD is likely to close within 1 day anyway. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2012 (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.