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 speedy keep. This is not the way to challenge the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Tunisia Scandal which was closed as keep only three days ago. I will explain to the nominator later today how he should proceed. JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Tunisia Scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

In an effort to review articles which are published online relating to the Microsoft brand, we have found this article and would request that it is removed from Wikipedia due to its substantial inaccuracy. The information contained in the article is incorrect, inaccurate and influences a negative perception of the Microsoft brand. I would like to emphasize that Microsoft provided earlier, clear explanations about unsupported allegations mentioned in the page, and keeping this page is harming Microsoft’s image without reflecting the complete story. As a Microsoft appointed representative could the owner of this article contact me directly so that we can discuss this matter further. MitchGWilliams (talk)

This was added to the log in the wrong place, without templates and was then added here with only the above text and no signature. I think I've fixed everything but apologies if I missed anything. Stalwart111 10:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

• Speedy keep and close It was clear from the previous discussion initiated by the same nominator that this is a misplaced nomination: AfD is not for clean-up, nor for expressing someone's dislike of the content on a page. Which goes for corporations too. The question is only one of notability and as per views on the previous AfD the article has sufficient WP:RS coverage on that front. (That aside the nominator seems rather confused about the nature of Wikipedia: "the owner of the article"?) AllyD (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - nominator has an enormous COI, and the article itself passes pretty much all guidelines. MitchGWilliams, I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia guidelines if you intend to remain here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:42, 7 July 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.