Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fring


 * 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. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fring

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article had been speedied several times as CSD G11. DRV overturned that result for the last, sourced version. Still, weak delete as excessively advertorial, pending other opinions. Xoloz 09:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Keep - I use it and love any minutes of it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.124.52 (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins 10:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)--
 * Keep I don't consider it an advertisement, but I understand why Xoloz feels it is. Shalom Hello 11:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this article has been edited, please let me know if its up to scratch now. Goplett 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC) — Goplett (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete It's pretty clear that a number of sock puppets have been created exclusively for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote this non-notable company. Examples are Smaunsell, Seital, Goplett and Shara77.  If the consensus is to keep the article, the "Features" list on the article should be removed, as well as "Milestones," as these seem to promote the company rather than describe it.  Furthermore, the secondary sources used to justify the article should come from news outlets other than the website of the company itself. 76.173.17.102 22:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete on balance, I think. The content is advertorial in style, and the references all appear to be traceable back to press releases and other non-independent sources.  I don't think this is making its mark, and I suspect that the article is part of a campaign to fix that. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable; promotional; too few secondary sources to support an article. Tom Harrison Talk 15:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete advertizing (perhaps not blatant under WP:CSD) for a non-notable product but notability is clearly not there. Carlossuarez46 21:48, 5 September 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.