Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Izimi


 * 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.  Singu larity  20:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Izimi

 * - (|View AfD) (View log)

I nominated this article for speedy deletion, as I felt it met the criteria as spam. However, user:EVula removed this, saying '(removing speedy deletion tag; article could be better, yes, but this doesn't strike me as G11-worthy deletion. Send to WP:AFD if you want it deleted)'.

I think it's spam; not notable software, and reads like an advert.

I welcome the opinions of others.

--  Chzz  ►  16:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree that this article seems to have a lot of hype, but it appears to have established notability, it isn't just a stub, and it looks like it could be improved. User:Wrs1864
 * Comment - I am concerned about COI. User user:Johnalexwood, who has been editing the page, states openly on his page that he works for the company behind this product. --  Chzz  ►  09:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Multiple independent sources indicate notability.  Arguments about the current wording and state of the article are moot and irrelevant, since those are issues that can be fixed via the regular editing process per DEL and BEFORE.  Celarnor Talk to me  02:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ATTENTION A user has expressed over IRC the he/she will get his/her friends to vote for keeping this article. Please watch out for WP:SPAs. Thanks,   CWii ( Talk  02:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable web content. The only reliable reference there is Financial Times, which doesn't provide significant coverage. Most of the others don't even work. -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 03:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per non-trivial coverage received here and, to a lesser extent, here. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:05, 24 May 2008 (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.