Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PimpMyNumber


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

PimpMyNumber

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

Overly promotional article that does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Talk page discussion hasn't helped, and the situation has deteriorated. Question for AfD: Is it notable? I think the answer is "no". Verbal  chat  16:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article is not overly promotional no more than any other article for a business listed on WP. Company is notable. But I doubt this will make any difference. //Melonite (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article shows no evidence of notability. The claimed notability relies on some awards given to an unnamed parent company, yet, a search of the referenced sites reveals no information regarding this company. There are links to a couple of industry regulatory bodies, which also show no information about this subject. I have searched and found no credible citations of this company anywhere. The author of the article, Melonite, has a conflict of interest, being an apparent insider, as the company uses DNS resources and web hosting services of a domain 'melonite-group.se'. The author has therefore been engaging in war editing with COI implications. Kbrose (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have also failed to find significant coverage in third-party reliable sources to indicate notability, which is the criteria for inclusion. None of the current references provide that as they're all self-published or not about the company at all. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 19:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 19:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems completely unnotable - reads like an advertisement. Mathsci (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Very weak Keep This is a recurrent problem:and article on an organization which contains a good deal of promotional content, but weak sourcing, normally written by someone with COI, but where a good deal of sourced negative comment is added as well by others. The easy solution is to delete the whole thing,  Very frequently   whoever has COI & is associated   with the organization supports deleting the article rather than have the negative material present. . This is a little unusual, in that the ed. with apparent COI has been trying to both delete the negative material and to keep the article in his preferred version. i'm reluctant to give up on the possibility of writing a balanced article. DGG (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very right that COI and promotional tone are not good reasons to delete, DGG. Could you explain why you think the article's subject is notable? Olaf Davis (talk) 10:22, 23 June 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.