Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essembly


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Essembly
Nn spamvertisement. It's still in beta, so there is no way it can even come close to WP:WEB. Delete --Hetar 08:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

WHAT? how is that possible...this is a social networking site just like MySpace and Facebook which are both written about extensively on Wikipedia. How can you exclude one like essembly that actually promotes something positive..it promotes thought and discourse and ideas! —This unsigned comment was added by Ndentzel (talk • contribs).


 * Delete; Alexa rank 111,395. If it does become the next MySpace, then we can always recreate the article (without the POV & advertising). smurray  inch   e  ster  ( User ), ( Talk ) 10:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the above. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, how dare we indeed!   Proto    ||    type    10:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn website. --Ter e nce Ong 17:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That is so horrible of you people, of all people on the internet I would have thought that Wikipedia would be open to allowing the free share of information..cleary you want to limit the flow of information by not allowing a short piece of information on Essembly. If you all think that it is an advertisement then why dont you check out the site, and then modify the article to fit how you like it. And, if it is indeed an advertisement, then so is EVERY article on this site that gives a thorough explanation of a product, service, site, or good.


 * Weak delete until becomes notable (2.0 release) -- getcrunk   juice  contribs 20:44, 2 April 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.