- 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. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mogulus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article about web content with no independent reliable source to establish notability Boffob (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. After searching through more than 100 Google search results, did not find anything notable. Certainly the article on its own doesn't suggest notability. Bongomatic (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Although the secondary source cited does not in itself substantiate notability, there does seem to be a good deal of secondary sources available for someone wishing to expand the article. It is sufficient for a stub. LeilaniLad (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as is, article is WP:SPAM. Investment reference is good. Delete and allow 2nd submission when the person puts some EFFORT into the article. - DustyRain (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Investment reference is "good" in the sense that it has relevant info, but it just can't be used to establish notability, per WP:N, as it's a press release by a company with vested interest in the subject of the article.--Boffob (talk) 18:36, 19 October 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.