- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ziptask (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Well written spam. Not notable, in spite of the many unreliable sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have rarely seen so many useless references in one article. A masterpiece, but not notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete every purported source is a new and exciting bit of cruft.--Talain (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete masterpiece. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The company has introduced a new Q&A and parsing technology that's noteworthy in the space. Article in form and substance similar, if not of better quality, than both Elance [1]and Odesk [2]pages of others in the space. Contributor.98.154.239.21 (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2012 (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.