- 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 of the debate was delete. Sango123 15:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original version of this article was slapped with a speedy tag by me because it was a direct copy from this organization's website (with "All Rights Reserved".) After it was deleted, it was recreated and elevated to the status of... Vanity "advertising". I left the article for a while to see if it could be improved, but after a week, I remain unconcvinced that this emergency contact system has taken hold to the extent the article says it has. (The external links I've looked at don't seem relevant.) Is this notable or not? You decide! Grandmasterka 09:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, website vanity, advertising. I only had to read as far as "we". JIP | Talk 12:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per JIP Mr Stephen 12:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per JIP --Starionwolf 18:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per JIP ~ trialsanderrors 02:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per JIP. —Khoikhoi 03:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite. Given that it's the subject of proposed Congressional legislation, is supported by Jesse Jackson, and it's not-for-profit, I'd allow its inclusion. It does need to be made more objective, though. - Richardcavell 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per JIP. Angr (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Riddled with advertisement and reads as a vanity article.--Auger Martel 12:02, 17 June 2006 (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.