Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladvertising

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 no consensus.

WP:NPASR and no prejudice against a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Gladvertising

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

Delete - This article is not notable to be added on Wikipedia and this article looks like written for promotion and advertising purpose. AdamSmithUS (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge/Redirect~~ to facial recognition. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on Facial recognition system but this subject is something more advanced. I have read about it and I believe the subject is notable. Here it's covered in Wired for example. Keep Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ This is an odd one, and I think I'm on shaky policy grounds voting for its deletion, but this could possibly run afoul of being a
WP:NOTADVERT as well. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Procedural Keep: apparent bad-faith nomination by a blocked sockpuppet account. No prejudice against immediate renomination by an editor in good standing.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that this does not apply if an editor in good standing !voted the same as the bad-faith nominator, as I have. "...if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision)." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to facial recognition system. There's relevant information to a real subject here, but it's not something that should have its own page. --erachima talk 00:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd support merging to facial recognition system. Changing vote to Merge. Probably the only way to consensus here, and that seems reasonable :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:06, 17 September 2013 (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.