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 deleted (CSD G3) by Stephen. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 02:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Co.[edit]

Connor Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

unverified claims of notability, questionable awards. Even the name of the company is unclear, is it Connor Corp, Connor Co., or Connor Corporation? Google news search brings up some hits but they appear to be different companies than what is described here. RadioFan (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as nonsense or a test page - this is incoherent and unverifiable babble. I42 (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Given the benefit of doubt, it's spam. JNW (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete This is pure vandalism. I have studied the history of the creator, and he/she is clearly running a vandalism only account. Six times this editor has created an unambiguously nonsense page which has been six times deleted. (The capitalisation of title has varied: Diary of a Mad Cow, Diary of a Mad cow and Diary of a mad cow). The article "Connor Co." was created with OR, Cleanup, and Refimprove tags already in place, suggesting that it too may have been a re-creation of a deleted article, though I have not been able to identify the original title. If it was not a re-creation then including those templates seems like vandalism in itself. The article gives the CEO's name as Connor Impson: this same name is used on a nonsense page of User:DiaryofaMadCow. The editor has repeatedly removed AfD templates from this article. He/she has also twice vandalised Jerry Crawford ([1] and [2]). This article itself is nonsense: it gives a lot of sentences any one of which might be about a real company, but it does not tell us anything coherent about the company, such as what its line of business is. There is no doubt left to give the benefit of: this is a vandalism only account, and this article is total fiction. JamesBWatson (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Further information I have checked the web links given as "references". Three of them are to pages which don't exist, the other three (really only two, as 2 of them are the same link) are to very amateurish looking personal web pages. JamesBWatson (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you. I will request a block of the account. JNW (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 17 July 2009 (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.