Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NetMovers


 * 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   Speedy delete. # 09:25, 25 September 2009 Backslash Forwardslash (talk | contribs) deleted "NetMovers" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

NetMovers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Third-party contested speedy. Although the two references included could be the basis of a valid article (but that probably wouldn't be enough), the current one is pure spam. Speedy delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 14:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The intention of the article is not to be spam - it describes the business model the company formed and how they used the internet to alter the way property is now bought and sold. This shift in model should be noted for informational purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.174.252 (talk • contribs) 2009-09-18 15:01:35
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Oh please why was this relisted? This is just plain spam. The comment from the IP just screams out "Please, please, I wrote this to further my commercial interests because I told the venture capitalists my advertising plan was grassroots so I spammed Wikipedia describing my 'bold new business process methodology'" Make this go away. Miami33139 (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as spam (g11) - so tagged. One, the article does nothing more than advertise the website.  Two, it's by admission of the above IP. Open shut case, in my opinion. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 03:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes the article is "borderline spam" and was obviously created by someone with a coi but I still felt that we needed at least one other editor to endorse the nomination and that's why I relisted it. Furthermore, the two sources listed in the article (one looks like an independent non-trivial mention, the other I'm not sure about) suggests that it may be possible to write a neutral article on this subject. However, I agree that this isn't that article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2009 (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.