Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProStudioApp

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. Deleted as G11. Creator spamublocked. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ProStudioApp

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

Delete, Scores no google hits to show notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable sources that could support the article. Has a legit website to show valid points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeatloafLovah (talk • contribs) 06:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article added more reference recently to their article Reputable Sites — Preceding unsigned comment added by Createlex (talk • contribs) 06:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not reliable and does not show notability.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The usual product advertisement spam, clearly failing WP:PRODUCT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what an interesting little hive of WP:COI and WP:PROMO this is! The products CreateLex and ProStudioApp were created by a particular individual (who shall remain nameless per WP:OUTING, though he's done a pretty good job of outing himself). User:Createlex here on WP has created two articles - one for this individual and one for ProStudioApp (neither of which seems particularly notable). User:MeatloafLovah tried to create an article about this individual whose most recent tweet (his Twitter profile being the first thing that comes up when you do a basic search for sources) was to promote... ProStudioApp (check who re-tweeted that and - shock horror! - the same name comes up again and again). You literally can't get through the first page of basic search results without tripping over the mass of COI tentacles. I don't think any of these editors are here to build an encyclopedia. Stalwart111 08:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable; an advert. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is just a promotion; no indication of notability. Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability asserted, but no citation for this assertion has been provided. Article as it stands is purely promotional with no references showing notability. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no citations, no notability CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, no reliable sources, pure promotion. Alex^{discussion ★} 15:57, 21 November 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.