Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProfNet

ProfNet
This page appears to be spam. It describes a service of PR Newswire. The page was created and edited solely by two 199.230.26.* IP's, both of which resolve to domains under prnewswire.com and appear to be proxies for internal corporate use. Note that the text doesn't even completely hide the fact that it's advertising -- it uses the first person in "ProfNet is supported by our member institutions." Even if the text were re-written by a third party, it's not clear to me that this can become encyclopedic.

The same IP's seem to have edited a few other pages that describe PR Newswire and its services (and perhaps their clients?). I don't have the time to do so, but perhaps someone can go through their contributions (see: .51 and .52), and see whether the others should be deleted (or NPOV'ed). Zyqqh 04:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Evidence above supports theory that it is spam. Also, it's a copyright violation: Aerion 07:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Is it a copyvio if the same firm wrote both the Wikipedia page and the external page that it is a copy of? Anthony Appleyard 11:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it's not cited and the original author hasn't explicitly consented to its use. Aerion 21:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Advertising/copyvio. I have a bad feeling that if it's listed on the copyvio page, all we'll get in return is a secretary writing a new ad just for us.  Geogre 13:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete or tag as copyvio and then delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 01:02, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advertising. Gamaliel 01:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely. It's an important service, widely used by journalists, especially in trade publications. I've used it myself a few times. The article does need to be rewritten. --LeeHunter 03:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I was about to amend my own comments to say also that it's a commonly used service. After I voted, the name kept ringing in my head.  It is a frequently used service, but I stand by my vote for the time being.  If it is rewritten to be NPOV and to discuss the service, I'll change my vote.  Geogre 04:34, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree. The article needs to discuss the service, and in particular why the service is unique or important. Aerion 05:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * del. Mikkalai 08:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the opening of the article. I'm pretty sure it doesn't need to be deleted now. --LeeHunter 17:59, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've tagged it as a copyvio since it still needs to be deleted for that. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 18:53, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)