![]() | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 January 31. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Non-notable. Original research. Created by sockpuppet account with COI. Lack of independent, reliable sources DRosin (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Handrem/Archive
That is about 9 accounts in total that have been blocked within a week relating to Love Systems. I'm not sure what 4 pages you are referring to, and I think only one of my articles has been deleted, but I think your editing behaviour exhibits a similar COI with Love Systems, and I would have thought you would take a break from Wikipedia after almost being banned for violating Wikipedia policy last week. I don't think the page can be improved because the subject lacks notability and the sources are not good enough. Some fresh eyes (that aren't sockpuppets) would be beneficial on this AfD. DRosin (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relister's note: The discussion is a mess, but without including blocked users there are some keep votes from non-SPA users, so I will relist it once for more discussion for more consensus even though it seems to be trended for a delete right now. Maybe a couple more comments would be necessary JForget 15:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]