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 keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 01:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mallzee[edit]

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

I'm proposing this because all, or almost all of the edits to it have been performed by a nest of sock puppets. Interested editors should examine Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IceTeaKing and consider whether this article has been created correctly, or for some other purpose. Does it possess genuine notability or does it fail WP:CORP?

This is a neutral nomination since I am genuinely unsure how to proceed. The article was created before the sock puppetry was discovered, thus before the sock drawer, which is large, was/were all blocked Fiddle Faddle 18:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly meets the GNG, and that's really all that matters since the group that created it (which appears to be a class) definitely isn't one of the banned paid editing firms that we could just apply G5 to. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful. In which case I withdraw the nomination with pleasure. Fiddle Faddle 20:29, 6 December 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.