Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liliana Dabic - Fashion Designer

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. Davewild (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liliana Dabic - Fashion Designer

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

The person may be notable, but this article is written as an unambiguous advert. The G11 was contested by user Liliana Dabic (who was not the article creator, but is the person the article is about), but Wikipedia is not a place for free advertising/promotion, see

WP:NOTASOCIALNETWORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

~~Thank you for your feedback - I have re-written my article. Please note it is not an advertisement or promotional page.~~ ~~Agusiabrg — Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguously promotional. About a quarter of the promotion has been toned down since the nomination, but the article would still need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to be encyclopedic. —
t c 18:42, 5 May 2015‎ (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: as pure promotionalism. Quis separabit? 21:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liliana Dabic, User:Agusiabrg and User:Liliana Dabic are the same person, so they shouldn't have removed the speedy deletion tag. I therefore believe this should be speedy deleted as a G11. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:09, 6 May 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.