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. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mpica[edit]

Mpica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Previously speedy deleted article. See: [1]. Current article is the same as the deleted one (see Google cache:[2]).

That of course makes it a candidate for speedy again, but the whack-a-mole game can go on forever. Nominated for being purely promotional; I'm uncertain about notability. Article author also seems interested only in promotion. User's other created article is also highly promotional; possibly speedy candidate:

Equitytouch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hairhorn (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pretty straight-forward, I think. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it stands currently. However there is some content within this that can be salvaged. MPICA might deserve some page that documents IT regulations, but this page is nothing more than some kind of promotion of the services and one company in particular. --SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree...sounds like its promoting a business. However one user keeps banking the article which is unacceptable still. I say delete.SchnitzelMannGreek. 13:46, 28 May 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.