Hair Transplant Network ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I believe that the Hair Transplant Network meets the criteria for notability. It is notable worldwide among men and women who are experiencing hair loss and seeking support, answers and treatments. While this is a for profit site, it carries no advertising nor does it charge members to join. This article is not meant to be promotional. It simply states the history of the creation of a revolutionary medical website that provides prospective surgical patients with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions and also holds physicians accountable to those patients.

The Hair Transplant Network is an online consumer advocacy community, forum and social network whose mission is to provide valuable medical advice and support to men and women suffering hair loss worldwide. HTN accomplishes this mission by maintaining a database of prescreened, experienced and skilled hair restoration physicians. These physicians must pass rigorous evaluation criteria in order to achieve recommended status. Furthermore, many of the affiliated physicians are considered “rock stars” in their field holding associated patents and authoring definitive texts on the subject of hair transplantation.

I honestly don't see what is missing here. How is this article different than any other article based on a popular online entity? David TTP ( talk) 04:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. Reviewing the text of the article, it was not anywhere near neutral point of view. I agree with the deleting administrator that it was hopelessly promotional in tone and met speedy deletion criterion G11, blatant advertising. — C.Fred ( talk) 04:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse absolutely. No doubt about it, it's a promotional essay that squarely meets G11.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 04:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse even this DRV listing is hopelessly promotional. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 06:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted, obvious advertising. Stifle ( talk) 12:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the article was clearly written in such a way as to promote the subject. The fact that the site carries no advertising and doesn't charge people to join doesn't affect this at all. I note that when the page was originally created there was a thread on the site trying to get people to repost the content. Hut 8.5 15:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse reviewed it, it's purely promotional and met G11.— Sandahl ( talk) 22:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Perfectly good speedy. This is what G11 is meant for. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and speedy close. It's just too bad we can't speedy delete the statement here on the same basis, because it's just as spammy.