- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Alexnia (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Revolution prep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Blatant advertisement; suspected violation of WP:COI Identical article was speedied previously for CSD G11. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since it has substantial coverage. POV and tone of the article need attention though. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per the "media coverage" section. Seems to have reliable 3rd party sources. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 01:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with the reservations noted above. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant keep How they managed to get two respectable newspapers to spam on their behalf, I don't know, but the LA Times and the Financial Times are reliable sources, and the coverage is significant. RayAYang (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notability well established the usual way. No problems exist anymore, seems to have been cleaned up a bit. WilyD 14:19, 10 November 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.