Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIBEO VI BIOS

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 by Jimfbleak as unambiguous advertising. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 11:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VIBEO VI BIOS

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

In its current state, it's totally unencyclopaedic, and possibly (but not obviously, hence I removed the speedy template) advertising, though the author insists otherwise, and seems to want it to be discussed, so here goes. Adam9007 (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete There are so many things wrong with this article, where do I begin? First of all, it should have been speedied for "no indication of significance" and a google search supports that this is non-notable. It has zero references, and obviously followed none of Wikipedia's guidelines. Regardless of what the article creator says, it is also clearly advertising from what I can tell. I'd be shocked if this was anyone other than an affiliate of the YouTube channel trying to drive traffic to their videos, because they make money off of them. Pretty clear cut case here. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 as an article about web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and per G11 as an exclusively promotional article that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. —teb728 t c 05:06, 13 May 2015 (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.