- 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. --MCB (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- W2wlink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable company. Searching yields nothing independent/reliable. [1] [2] Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedily delete as spam, so nominated. – ukexpat (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur, Speedy delete, since it appears to be spam. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 20:20, 11
- Delete. I doubt it's spam (removed the tag; should really only be speedied through here anyways), given that there's a lot there that doesn't boil down to "Come join our website!". However, a decent-sized chunk is kinda' a vanity spot for the owner of the company that owns the site, and it doesn't appear that it's been around long enough to have a lot of published articles about it. Lack of good sources means fails WP:N, so delete. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
March 2008 (UTC)
- Not technically spam, but delete anyway. There's no proof of the company's notability, and the article is lacking any reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like some references have been added, and it is in the same type of article as appears for hundreds of other web ventures to serve as a factual background on a new company. It doesnt appear to be targeted as spam or advertising. user; cptx3
March 2008 (UTC)
- Do we include links that are to prove notability in the document? What constitutes a reliable source? We want to play nice here, and we believe this needs a definition. w2wlink 21:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to hear you are willing to make adjustments. Instead of explaining, I'll direct you to WP:V and WP:RS, as well as WP:ORG. These links should help you and others establish the notability of the article. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:38, 11 March 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.