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 as unverified, unsourced, probable spam. No prejudice against recreation or userfying for improvment if/when the article's creator (or anyone else) can find reliable, third party sources that talk about this institute in a neutral way. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Sleep Institute (CSI)[edit]

Clayton Sleep Institute (CSI) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Advert-like article on sleep institute. Speedied several times as spam. Now slightly less spammy. Fairly obvious COI (and apparent sockpuppetry). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete though less "spammy" it is still spam as well as non-notable and contains no 3rd party reliable sources for verification purposes. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose speedy: The editor is new, didn't realise what was required, and has since contacted me (as the admin who deleted a related article by the same author) via email to ask advice on what our requirements are. I believe the sockpuppetry was a case of the editor not understanding why their original account no longer worked, so making a new one. I don't intend to contest the AfD, as the article does not currently meet WP:VERIFY or WP:NOTE, but the author is currently blocked, rather harshly in my view, and obviously can't do anything to improve the article - hence I think a speedy is a little premature. I agree there may also be WP:COI issues, but I think we could at least give this a few days to see where it goes. EyeSerene^talk 19:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that both of those accounts existed prior to today's blocks - neither was created as the result of a blocked account. I requested a block of the second account for block evasion by the user. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for catching my mistake - I did notice at time that they weren't new accounts, but by the time I commented here I'd forgotten :P However, I think my point still stands - the user apparently has (or had, as one's now indefblocked) access to two accounts, but since there are very few edits from either, and the second was only used to ask for advice on the article talk page once the first had been blocked, I still don't believe there was any intentional sockpuppetry. EyeSerene^talk 20:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't either, now - rather a new user who didn't understand the rules. I have undone my block, which was rather harsh when taken in full context. Unfortunately, this article is somewhat lacking in terms of verifiability and asserting notability. Neıl 龱 17:48, 4 June 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.