Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OsseoLink


 * 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. ffm is now L Faraone  22:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

OsseoLink

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Spammy article about a dental implant system. Do any of the external links demonstrate the notability of this product? &mdash; RHaworth 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - To answer the nominator's question, "No." Most of the links have nothing to do with this product.  Several Internet searches reveal nothing that shows notability of this.  There are exactly ZERO news ghits and ZERO Google scholar ghits about it.  Spam. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per Bearian. Joe Chill (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, the language makes it a pretty clear spam case. Hairhorn (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a spam and we are working towards editing this article. Not having it on Google search does not mean it is a spam. Please check the news links. Your tips are much appreciated. Kindly suggest what changes need to be made.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.249.56 (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at the News Link and saw nothing. What deep search engine are you using? Bearian (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Added a relevant link to demonstrate notability of this product. The end user of this product is the general public even though it is made by clinicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.249.56 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, obviously per the arguments above. I would also suggest to the editor from IP address 70.147.249.56 that continuing to try to defend this spam after being found out can only possibly reflect badly on his or her employer. Remember that even after the article is deleted this deletion discussion will still be found by search engines, and people will form their opinion of the company producing this product on its basis. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why you are calling this article a spam! Would appreciate tips and recommendations to amend this posting to keep it in Wikipedia. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.249.56 (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We only have to read the first four words of the article to see that its purpose is promotional rather than encyclopedic. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, clearly spam masquerading as an article. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 16 December 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.