Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monova


 * 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.  Singu larity  06:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Monova

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable company, tagged as G11 and prod'd both removed by single purpose account who makes nothing but links to this company. I see notability issues, advertising and conflict of interest. Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. Paddy Simcox (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; The company clearly exists. If you have a problem with the CONTENT of the article, the proper solution is not to delete it but fix it up.  If you can't be bothered to do that, fine, but that's no need to go trying to nuke it altogether.  Just because you're not interested doesn't mean no one else is.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 15:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It exists, but does it meet WP:N? I did do a search for records and couldn't find any reliable sources, do you know of any?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Who cares about notability? It's wrong.  It's irrelevant.  It's unneeded.  Sourcing is a different issue, of course, but perhaps right now the proper solution is not to delete.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 23:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:N is an accepted community guideline, so who cares? The Wikipedia community does. The fact that you refuse to even acknowledge this community-built and community-accepted standard is one thing, but I'm tremendously disappointed by the lengths to which you go trying to inject your unhelpful contrary opinion into every deletion discussion you come across (even otherwise uncontroversial ones). "Keep because it exists" is not and has never been a valid rationale. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because it's wildly unpopular doesn't mean it's invalid. The only difference between my position and yours is that yours is more popular.  We're both equally entitled (to the extent that concept is meaningful on this project) to participate in discussions from our respective points of view.  Public disagreement with consensus is perfectly fine.  If I were actually causing problems--if I were actually going around recreating deleted articles, or making gross insults, etc.--you'd have a point; but right now as best I can tell you're just upset because I'm promoting an idea you're uncomfortable with.  For something like that, frankly, tough for you.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 05:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on guys, let's keep it civil and on topic.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - There are no reliable sources - that's just Kurt's philosophy coming through.. As just another torrent site (not anywhere near the top few) it attracts no interest outside its community. Simply cannot write a verifiable article on the subject - Peripitus (Talk) 22:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising and COI. Biruitorul (talk) 16:57, 23 March 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.