Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Debt Relief


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

National Debt Relief

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable business. Minor coverage only in unreliable blogs and websites. I'm not sure how a National Debt Relief company can ever be notable. Subject fails GNG and CORP. CitizenNeutral (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet GNG, and reads as ad copy that would fit well on their never-ending mid-day cable news ads (where most know them from).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - As much as I do not like seeing the commercials myself, it comes down to sources. The Yahoo and AllVoices establish WP:GNG in my opinion. I am not familiar with the others so I cannot opine on their reliability. This is also a stub so not sure how much ad copy can really fit into it. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The Yahoo item is from the Yahoo contributor's network where anybody can contribute an article.  The same thing for Allvoices.  This means they are no reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  22:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete so little independent coverage in light of such a large television advertising budget indicates we are dealing with a profoundly non-notable firm here. Boogerpatrol (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete a fairly ordinary mushroom firm with illiterate web designers. Jamesx12345 (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2013 (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.