Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doku (2nd nomination)

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doku

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

No evidence of notability; the company's own website tells very little about them and gives the impression that they've only recently gone online.

Note: I have removed the "AFD's for this article" template, normally present, because the previous AfD was for something else of the same name. —Soap— 00:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per criterion A7 and maybe even G11. This article does not establish the business's notability, and it reads like an advertisement. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty clearly advertising. Borderline G11, certainly not an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant spam. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant G11. iic02p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.25.93.2 (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, spam, db-corp. Hairhorn (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2011 (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.