- 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 keep. John254 00:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Econcern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article is a thinly-veiled advertisement for the company and its founder, Ad van Wijk, who presumably controls Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts Special:Contributions/CC_MeK and Special:Contributions/MegaMad. It could potentially be speedily deleted under CSD G11. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —DanielPenfield (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —DanielPenfield (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. OK, the advertisement here isn't even thinly veiled, it's pretty blatant. However, it can be rewritten and the subject is plenty notable-- see, for instance, this article in the Telegraph, this slightly more than passing mention in the Times, and this brief mention of a significant project in De Tijd. I don't think we can or should delete this, though I agree that the spam here is thick enough to feed a family. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete In sufficient notability. Keep Telegraph story is substantial. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:03, 6 January 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.