Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template Monster

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. Uncontested. Noting that CSD G5 was not applicable here. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template Monster

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

This is a promotional article created by Attedread, an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of Mamadoutadioukone. These (and other) accounts were blocked for paid content creation in violation of WP:COI. The sources cited in this article are press releases (WP:SPS), blog posts, and primary sources such as Alexa.com. Delete per WP:GNG, since this article's subject has not has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. - tucoxn\^talk 15:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The other two articles created by the same user were both deleted for WP:CSD#G5: creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Editors should consider the same speedy deletion option for this article. - tucoxn\^talk 15:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Page reads like a company's about page. There is, in reality, only one reference. One is a repeat, two have no importance, and two are first party releases. The one reference is also not notable by any means. --Wirbelwind(ヴィルヴェルヴィント) 06:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I myself would've tagged this as G5 but it may be removed because of its history (despite the article still not being convincing to keep) and none of the listed coverage is enough for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 15 March 2016 (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.