- 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. MBisanz talk 10:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Long Tail Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Spamtastic software with no assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, more of an advertisement than an encyclopædia article. Software doesn't appear to be that notable, either. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete = No third-party references, not notable. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete What a spamfest. ukexpat (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a legal software used by Internet Marketers. Do we only talk about products owned by billion dollar companies? Tell me what do you require for validation? The product has it's own web site (LongTailMagic.com), it has an online demo, product is available for immediate purchase, it has a list of customers using it. Do mention if we are only going to list products from Microsoft, Google or other Big companies and not let the small companies list their products that are of the same potential as the big companies. Blokhra (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: please see my reply on your talk page. In brief, see WP:SPAM, WP:N and WP:RS. Other stuff exists is not a helpful argument against deletion. – ukexpat (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: From this image page, it also appears that you may have a conflict of interest. You are strongly cautioned against writing articles to which you have a close personal/financial etc connection. – ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Would it be worth editing this article and making it a complete software spec sheet or would everyone just want to have it deleted because it doesn't make sense to have product information listed here, besides of course the big giants?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blokhra (talk • contribs)
- It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the software is a big giant, it's that the article isn't notable under our standards. The article is written like an advertisement instead of an encyclopedia article (and making it into a software spec sheet is just as bad - we want encyclopedia articles, not software manuals or spec sheets). There's precious little information about this software that is verifiable in reliable sources written by third parties. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 19:25, 3 April 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.