Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lashzone

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. Deleted by Orangemike (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lashzone

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

Completely non-notable website. No claim to significance, importance or notability. No independent sources whatsoever. Speedy deletion contested. Interestingly, the db tag was very quickly removed by the same editor who very quickly removed the db tag from another article about a nn website created by the same user who created this one. I still think this article is very much a speedy deletion candidate, but no harm in letting it go through AfD I suppose. bonadea contributions talk 15:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see some very small signs of notoriety in the form of local news articles at Oxford ([1] and [2]) but I don't see much else beyond that. Mangoe (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like just another essay service. No apparent indications of notability, just an apparent willingness to engage in self-promotional spamming—behavior that we shouldn't reward in the real world or on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speed Delete A7 no claim to any significance. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 02:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article should be kept, controversial website and have some issues with oxford the oxford student online --Hihimanshu70 (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? They're notable because they sent a flurry of spam a couple of weeks ago, and thereby earned a mention in a student newspaper? Guys, I just found a way to get my crappy startup company an article in Wikipedia! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I see; you have a clear, undisclosed conflict of interest. Hihimanshu70 is being paid to create these spammy articles about spammy, otherwise-non-notable companies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient evidence that this site meets WP:GNG or WP:WEB at this time. Gong show 09:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per GongShow. Andrew³²⁷ 18:04, 13 February 2013 (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.