Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feedback comment system


 * 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 Although the discussion here is spare, deletion succeeds on strength of argument. As it stands, this content barely avoids CSD A3 for link-lists. There is a minimal, unsourced introduction, together with the list of providers savvy enough to link themselves to Wikipedia: this is not what an article is supposed to be. A real rewrite on the topic is welcome, but this is a linkspam-haven for the moment, and it is in the best interest of the Project to remove it forthwith. Xoloz (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Feedback comment system

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not assert notability. No sources. Seems like a spam trap. Torc2 (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, no valid deletion criteria presented. Need of cleanup and expansion are not valid reasons.  Cburnett 21:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - WP:N is exceptionally clear about the requirement that an article provide citations that establish its subject's notability. Torc2 22:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * delete - Article still has no sources or notability and is still doing nothing but attracting spam links. Torc2 (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep sources and spam links are editing concerns. Maybe a transwiki to Wikitionary Mbisanz (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2007 (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.