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 all. Maxim_(talk) 12:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nrpn[edit]

Article fails WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Financial Times group.
I am also nominating the following related pages:

Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Fails to meet notability guidelines. Also appears to be self-promotion/spam. Possible COI exists as well. Dgf32 (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, advert, and keep an eye on that IP address range. Tempshill (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and relist separately. Just because these publications have the same publisher it doesn't mean that they should stand or fall together. The decision on deletion should be based on whether each particular one is notable, not on the imagined motives of the articles' creators. For the moment I have added a book and a newspaper source for Pensions week, which can be seen to be notable by the fact that it is frequently quoted by major newspapers and broadcasters. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. BWH76 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2008 (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.