The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Declining db-spam speedy because two people shouldn't be making this call, there's a lot going on here, but taking to AfD because I believe a solid majority wouldn't see a great deal of difference between this company's brochure ([1]) and this article. There were copyright problems, the article creator worked on them and contacted OTRS, and the article was restored by Moonriddengirl. I'm hoping that additional work will be done and we can keep the article, but not in its present state. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that you can bring an article to AfD so that other people will do a lot of work researching the sources and fixing the problems is a fallacy that needs to be challenged every time it surfaces.
WP:BEFORE says quite clearly that where the article's imperfect or a stub, AfD is for evaluating its potential rather than its current content.
I do see the concern about copyright, but it belongs on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems, not here.
Speedy close under WP:SK ground 1.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you were challenging to the article's notability, sourcing, or verifiability then I'd see something to discuss, but you don't seem to be. All I see is a challenge on WP:NPOV (which, I think, means "rewrite it so it's neutral", not "bring it to AfD") and a challenge to its copyright status (which, I think, belongs on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems, though I must say that it was Moonriddengirl who restored it and I tend to take her view about copyright as gospel because of her expertise in that field).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the ((expert)), ((advert)) and ((coi)) tags to address your concerns.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]