Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/247virtual


 * 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. Fram (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

247virtual

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Based on this search, I'm not entirely sure whether it's more of a) Wiki is not a dictionary or b) WP:SPAM issues. Travellingcari (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a dictionary or neologism issue to me. News searching and article searching tells me that this is simply a descriptive phrase rather than a topic for an encyclopedia article.  As such, I suggest transwikiing to Wiktionary. -- jonny - m  t  06:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. I would agree with you if the name of the article was 24/7 Virtual The fact that the only link provided by the article points to a website called "247virtual.com" lends credence to the WP:SPAM argument -- RoninBK T C 07:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that the presence of the single link to a promotional website is...fishy, but given the lack of excessive marketspeak in the article I don't quite think it qualifies as blatant spam. I should probably clarify that any transwikiing should be done only after a cleanup and removal of the link. -- jonny - m  t  02:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no transwiki. A Google search for reveals that most hits are related to a UK marketing company. There's absolutely no evidence this is a term in common usage. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 08:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete either toss it under WP:CSD, blatant advertising (thinly veiled) or just delete as WP:NEO Yng  varr  10:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Commentit appears as if this move has already been done (including the link to the company's site) by bot rendering this discussion moot. I do agree with the others here that this wasn't really the best move since it doesn't appear to be a word in frequent use. Travellingcari (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Zetawoof RogueNinja talk  15:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete completely NN neologism and do not transfer this to Wiktionary, is not ever used, seems like spam.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So it has. I'm sorry; I wasn't aware that this was done automatically by a bot, or I wouldn't have tagged the article for transwiki.  If consensus was to transwiki, I had certainly hoped to send them a better copy than that... -- jonny - m  t  13:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * *Response I'm not sure what undo protocol is when it comes to undoing bot moves to another Wiki and I don't work on Wiktionary at all. Perhaps someone else will suggest what, if anything, needs to be done. I think we all have our oopses in life. Travellingcari (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I removed the copy to Wiktionary tag, because it's pure spam for a non-notable website and doesn't belong as a word in a dictionary.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 16:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Response Per Talk:247virtual, it's already gone and appears to be listed there. Travellingcari (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the editors of Wiktionary aren't stupid. It's not in their mainspace yet and I'm sure someone'll root it out. The only Wikimedia project I participate in though is the English Wikipedia, because I don't want to complicate things too much.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 16:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Same I just meant that it was too late to undo the tag as the move had been accomplished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 19:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's apparently not moot at the moment, because we still have a page here on Wikipedia to deal with. With all due respect, the fork on Wiktionary is Wiktionary's problem now. -- RoninBK T C 09:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.