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. "Page creator was paid to write this" as-is is not yet a reason to delete anything
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Question The most recent nomination was closed as keep a month ago - can you give more explanation for why it needs another discussion, such as any supporting evidence for the article having been written as paid editing?
Dreamyshade (
talk) 21:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Company is obviously notable, paid editing or not. There is no
WP:PROMO language as the nominator claims.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 02:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep as per the last AfD.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 03:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I am pleased with the improvements previously made to the article. If the article fell victim to "brochure" appearances, as one of the ongoing editors in its first years, I take that as constructive criticism (and an incidental testament to improved article standards). As the article creator, I stand by my statements that I have NO FINANCIAL CONNECTION or even a DIRECT PERSONAL CONNECTION to the company, its founders, or any employees, and I take strong exception to any allegations otherwise. This is a slur. --
Dhartung |
Talk 06:51, 21 August 2017 (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.
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. "Page creator was paid to write this" as-is is not yet a reason to delete anything
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Question The most recent nomination was closed as keep a month ago - can you give more explanation for why it needs another discussion, such as any supporting evidence for the article having been written as paid editing?
Dreamyshade (
talk) 21:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Company is obviously notable, paid editing or not. There is no
WP:PROMO language as the nominator claims.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 02:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep as per the last AfD.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 03:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I am pleased with the improvements previously made to the article. If the article fell victim to "brochure" appearances, as one of the ongoing editors in its first years, I take that as constructive criticism (and an incidental testament to improved article standards). As the article creator, I stand by my statements that I have NO FINANCIAL CONNECTION or even a DIRECT PERSONAL CONNECTION to the company, its founders, or any employees, and I take strong exception to any allegations otherwise. This is a slur. --
Dhartung |
Talk 06:51, 21 August 2017 (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.