Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUUP


 * 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

LUUP

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An m-commerce business that allows users to send and receive money via their mobile phone. An spa is being persistent with this article. Is it spam / non-notable? -- RHaworth 17:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 
 * Comment. This is not spam! The company is one of the main players in the M-commerce industry Unclezoot 11:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless the article is cited with some independent sources. The company website alone is inadequate.--Appraiser 14:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:CORP. --Aarktica 22:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Nevermind... --Aarktica 20:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Comment - media mentions have been added since the delete comments were made, including a significant feature in The Guardian. I am therefore relisting to enable editors to consider the new material. TerriersFan 23:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to pass WP:RS now. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 23:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the guardian article meets notability to me.   Carlosguitar 00:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:SPAM per RHaworth. Article content limited to product description, but once this is stripped this away, the article fails to demonstrate notability criteria for companies per Aarktica . A case of an over-enthusiastic staff member failing to read the WP:CORP guidelines perhaps? --Gavin Collins 12:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - a search of news articles shows they are being written about, so meets WP:CORP with reliable sources. As for spamminess, that can be editted away.  For example, the accolades section should probably be removed. -- Whpq 16:00, 31 August 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.