Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Tunisia Scandal

: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. No valid rationale for deletion has been provided. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

=[[Microsoft Tunisia Scandal]]=

:{{la|Microsoft Tunisia Scandal}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Microsoft_Tunisia_Scandal Stats])

:({{Find sources|Microsoft Tunisia Scandal}})

I am a representative of Microsoft for their social media presence in the MENA region and when working on our search strategies i found this article online, the client being Microsoft have requested that this be removed as the events documented in this article infringe on the brand and associate it with politically motivated claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitchGWilliams (talk • contribs) 11:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)‎

  • Comment “Microsoft doesn't like this article” is not a valid reason for deletion. You might want to read Wikipedia's deletion policy. User<Svick>.Talk(); 12:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep The article has references to reliable sources (bylined articles at ZDnet and TechWeekEurope). The matter beyond that is one of ensuring :WP:NPOV but that is for normal editing. AllyD (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep We don't delete an article about a notable topic simply because a large corporation is concerned about its branding and its association with politics in Tunisia. I am unconvinced that the nominator is really speaking on Microsoft's behalf, but that doesn't really matter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep as the nominator has offered no grounds to delete other than damage to a brand, which is not a valid reason. If the nominator believes that a libel has taken place then they should follow the process at WP:libel. asnac (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep per above. No valid reason for deletion. Ansh666 19:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, no valid deletion rationale offerred. If the entry is incorrect, edit accordingly. Hairhorn (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

: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.