143:- there are references to demonstrate multiple coverage in third-party sources, although not all of this coverage qualifies as non-trivial and reliable (as the nominator says, some of the sources are blogs). I'd give it the benefit of the doubt, but it needs to be substantially rewritten to remove the advertising tone.
126:
No claim to notability (except blogs), blatant advertising, written pretty much by SPA. Prod deleted by article writer without comment. Qualifies for speedy but thought I'd see if anyone could turn up anything of value on them
119:
245:. I don't think this outfit is notable and specialist search engines are common. Therefore, on second thought I think it is more
92:
87:
96:
17:
79:
152:
283:
36:
282:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
145:
194:
212:
268:
253:
236:
215:
200:
176:
164:
134:
61:
83:
264:
as it is borderline spam. Notability coule be proved, though, and a rewrite may make this acceptable.
197:
55:
250:
233:
224:
because I cannot see the notability of this outfit and the slogans in the article tending towards
75:
67:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
265:
191:
131:
172:
The references seem almost all to be blogs, and the article reads like an
Advertisement.
246:
225:
160:
50:
211:
Most if not all of the refs are not from appropriate sources. Written as an ad. --
113:
185:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
173:
128:
276:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
241:
Had a closer look over the website and change my vote to
109:
105:
101:
190:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
286:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
260:It is indeed difficult. Right now, I say
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
228:]. However, I would support a
1:
303:
269:21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
254:19:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
237:20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
216:16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
201:15:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
177:06:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
165:11:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
135:09:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
62:04:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
249:than useful information.
279:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
220:Difficult one. I vote
243:Delete - full stop
213:Daniel J. Leivick
203:
162:
294:
281:
189:
186:
163:
159:
157:
150:
117:
99:
60:
34:
302:
301:
297:
296:
295:
293:
292:
291:
290:
284:deletion review
277:
184:
153:
146:
144:
90:
74:
71:
49:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
300:
298:
289:
288:
272:
271:
258:
257:
256:
218:
205:
204:
188:
180:
179:
167:
124:
123:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
299:
287:
285:
280:
274:
273:
270:
267:
263:
259:
255:
252:
248:
244:
240:
239:
238:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
217:
214:
210:
207:
206:
202:
199:
196:
193:
187:
182:
181:
178:
175:
171:
168:
166:
161:
158:
156:
151:
149:
142:
139:
138:
137:
136:
133:
130:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
58:
54:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
278:
275:
262:Weak delete,
261:
242:
229:
221:
208:
183:
169:
154:
147:
140:
125:
76:Compete, Inc
68:Compete, Inc
56:
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
170:Weak Delete
266:Realkyhick
232:as well.
230:Weak Keep
141:Weak Keep
120:View log
251:HagenUK
247:WP:Spam
234:HagenUK
226:WP:Spam
93:protect
88:history
222:Delete
209:Delete
174:NBeale
97:delete
57:scribe
46:delete
192:Whisp
129:BozMo
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
198:ring
132:talk
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
155:ton
148:Wal
118:– (
52:WjB
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
48:.
195:e
122:)
116:)
78:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.