- 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. BJTalk 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- File Dropper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- Delete With the exception of the criticism section (which goes to notability issues), the remainder of the article reads (IMHO) like advertising copy. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This does not warrant its own article, for three reasons: 1) Website in question has no pagerank 2) The Wikipedia article appears to serve as nothing but a promotional plug; in fact the page was seemingly created by someone with a vested interest in the company - 90% of the edits to the article are also by this user, and 3) because the company in question is no different from countless other companies offering exactly the same service who are not considered notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page. This article should be deleted and then partially merged into the file hosting service page. 92.232.121.101 (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and MergeRedirect and Merge works for me. The only mention of it on sites that would be considered reliable sources are quotes written by File Dropper, sourced from the File Dropper site itself. Not notable enough on its own, yet. The one bit of encyclopedic content (the criticism section) should be merged into a section in file hosting service. See WP:NOTGUIDE, #3. Livitup (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Comment - "Delete and merge" isn't a valid recommendation; anything merged needs a redirect to comply with the GFDL so the copyright history is visible. It's either "redirect and merge" or "delete". -FrankTobia (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, changed to delete. 92.232.121.101 (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, you're right. Redirect and merge it is, though I won't cry if a plain delete is the consensus. Livitup (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I forgot I was not logged in when I did it. It was my nomination. Thank you. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 00:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No it wasn't? It was my nomination. I am an IP user... 92.232.121.101 (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article implies that Filedropper is on par with more established services like Yousendit. The article needs some serious copy-editing to make it sound less like advertising, but a need for a rewrite is not a compelling rationale for deletion. As an aside, if the article does survive and get its rewrite, that main image, which seems to shill for the site and not just illustrate it, needs to go as well. Ford MF (talk) 14:24, 28 June 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.