Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Penguins

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 deleted per G7. Article has been deleted: 15:22, 12 March 2014 Anthony Bradbury (talk | contribs) deleted page Blue Penguins (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) (non-admin closure) Jarkeld (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Penguins

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

All the sources seem to either be about VOIP in general, or about the 0700 numbering scheme. Most are from many years ago, and none seem to mention the company. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge - No reason to have its own article. Bali88 (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an ad for VOIP/Blue Penguins. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Commercial spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, per WP:SPAM author obviously has a WP:COI in this company and is now being disruptive on wikipedia. WP:CSD_G5 is likely to cover it in the near future. Martin451 13:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note. Martin451 has endorsed a WP:SPAM article Voipfone which I mentioned and has been poorly written, and is pure spam. Martin451 please note raising flags on spam articles is not considered being disruptive. Martin451 has no sufficient reason to delete this article other the fact I been raising flags on some questionable articles and sources, which have not been moderated for several years. Also note Martin451 has not mentioned any reason to have this article deleted, other than accuse Simon of being disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon161388 (talk • contribs)

Raising multiple AfDs because the WP:SPAM article for your own company has been nominated is WP:Pointy and disruptive, especially when those articles are for your competitors. Using WP:SOCK puppets to !vote in AfDs will get you banned. Sometimes it is good to call a spade a WP:SPADE and you are not here to be constructive. Martin451 14:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin451 has brought up the fact that this article for deletion for the fact for my involvement of flagging Voipfone for spam. Martin451 also wants Voipfone WP:SPAM article to remain by using the WP:COI and WP:Pointy cards. The fact Voipfone is WP:SPAM and needs to reviewed by the wiki team. Allowing Voipfone to remain, and Blue Penguins to be deleted will undermine the wikipedia foundation for WP:SPAMMY article, regardless if they flagged by simon161388 who has WP:COI in Blue Penguins. This is where Communal Consensus comes in and decides whether Voipfone, or Blue Penguins remains or gets deleted. Not Martin451 who wants to use disruptive behaviour, WP:COI and WP:Pointy cards to keep me from flagging WP:SPAM site such as Voipfone is not disruptive behaviour. I personally will understand if Blue Penguins is spam and must be deleted, but for Voipfone to remain on wiki indefinitely due to the fact it can has been for several years without a compliant or a flagg to the communal consensus is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon161388 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 March 2014‎

Delete. Commercial spam.CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. a request has been made to delete Blue Penguins as to defending the article by (talk) is getting to time consuming, and please no one reverted the page to continue this three ring cirus. (talk) Simon161388 (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2014 (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.