Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eluta.ca


 * 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. "Reads like an advertisement" is generally not a deletion criterion unless it's blatant, speedyable advertisement. There seem to be good multiple references to establish notability otherwise. - crz crztalk 05:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Eluta.ca
Reads like an advertisement Piuro 01:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:WEB. The article doesn't assert notability. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Clean Up - Has received a fair bit of national press in Canada, although the article definitely needs to lose the advert feeling. Torinir ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 01:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, because it has referances and it also is somewhat decent. My only problem is I hate it when people join Wikipedia and make one article and the only contribs are to that article. It can come across as spam.-- †hε þяínce öf ɒhaямa Talk to Me 02:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I believe this article's external links need to be looked at. They aren't legitimate articles, but merely reprints of the company's press release in major newspapers. WP:WEB specifically excludes "media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site". --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Good point by the last commenter. The only thing that could justify this article is serious press coverage, and Brad Beattie says there wasn't any.  The company is too new to be "real" in encyclopedic terms.  See WP:COI 129.98.212.67 03:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. Press releases don't count as media coverage. EVula 04:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This articles internal links need to be checked for the same reason I nominated this one. Piuro 17:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. Eusebeus 13:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Advertising Patrick Hurston 13:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Spamadcruft for nn corp with no reliably sourced info. Marcus22 19:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Am original author. Have made edits to address concerns raised by Piuro and EVula. Subject has attracted quite a bit of legitimate press in Canada and is not adequately explained elsewhere.  Zephyr9998 23:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB --  ßott  e   siηi  (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Clean Up with ultra heavy detergent. Barely salvageable Qaanaaq 12:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I looked at the links, and most of them do merely reprint the company's press releases. However, the cited Toronto Star article looks like legitimate press coverage and I found another one here.  It ain't much, but I think there's just enough out there to keep the article. -Kubigula (ave) 02:39, 28 October 2006 (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.