Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliteanswers.com

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. seicer | talk | contribs 21:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eliteanswers.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article is basically an advertisement/press release for the company in question. Moving to AfD as a contested speedy. Ryanjunk (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 22:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Per G11, as already tagged prior to Afd ukexpat (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Falls into the Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING area. Although it is written well, it still does not cross over to the relm of encyclopedic.
• weak keep It seems to meet WP:NOTE, I have tagged it as advert and for cleanup Fasach Nua (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Author was warned that it read like an advert before moving it from their userpage. At present it looks very much like "referenced" spam (which doesn't actually appear to have any coverage from reliable 3rd party sources in any non-trivial manner). Put it back in userspace (sandbox) and allow creator and other editors to rewrite and reference appropriately if need be but, definitely doesn't belong in article space. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, strongly, possible speedy delete as blatant advertising and patent nonsense to boot. The article's language full of empty buzzwords and peacock terms is only masquerading as English. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It seems more like advertising than a legitimate article, and I see no assertion of notability. --Eastlaw (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2008 (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.