Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flimap


 * 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. --- Gl e n 01:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Flimap
This article appears to be nothing more than an advertisement for a service (Fli-Map) provided by a single company (John Chance Land Surveys). This article has been edited by a single author, User:Verminaard510, who also published links on the Lidar page in order to advertise this service. It is in violation of the Wikipedia policy against advertisement.

Justin 01:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC) $$Insert formula here$$
 * Weak Delete - The FliMap system actually seems to be in use in a number of countries. (See Flimap.nl for instance.) I'm not sure how prominent it is compared to other similar systems, or how widely it is used.  I don't get an enormous number of google hits for it (581). --Brianyoumans 02:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete with no prejudice. As written it is too spammy. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  08:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:CORP, lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles, no national awards, no evidence service has suffered genericization. Fair amount of Google hits also shows press releases and product listings.  Concur on article being advertising.  to quote WP:CORP, "Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article".  Tychocat 09:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per all above, plus the article was contributed by a user with no other substantial edit history - probable WP:VANITY and smells distinctly of pork product. Cain Mosni 13:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Could be rewritten as a real article, if some sources exist. GumbyProf: &quot;I&#39;m about ideas, but I&#39;m not always about good ideas.&quot; 19:01, 5 September 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.