Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letter To God


 * 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 (default to keep). Keilana talk(recall) 01:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Letter To God

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An electronic Wailing Wall being promoted by its webmaster. Is it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete article is clearly a commercial website advertisement in violation of WP:SPAM. Mh29255 (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article was written in order to add information about Letter To God Ltd., the category is Privately held companies of Israel, if this article is commercial then all the registered companies in Wikipedia are commercial as well. I've invested a lot of time in written the article, if you think it has commercial content please rephrase the relevant parts. Thanks.gokoby (talk)
 * Keep – The article is very informative, contains many inner links that are informative as well and should appear in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.41.2 (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * DeleteMay be a great service. But is very spammy to me. Mbisanz (talk) 10:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep – I don't see a reason to delete this article, it informs the reader about a company called "letter to god" and about it's services, i do not see the content as an advertisement or as spam, since it clear enough from the article that this is a commercial company, i don't see how it violates Wikipedia's rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.118.48.248 (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was edited to feet Wikipedia's rules.--Gokoby (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The articles about some companies establish notability. This article does not.  I don't think that two links to short articles on the same (non-English) website qualify as notability.  And Gokoby, it's bad form to vote twice on the same Afd. Watchsmart (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article seems to conform to Wikipedia rules, altought this is commercial company it has some useful information for other users —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.20.241 (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but i would like to see some 3rd party source in addition to ynetnews. DGG (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Added another reference to the article --Gokoby (talk) 16:38, 27 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.