Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sms.ac


 * 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 of the discussion was keep. The article was renamed so that it's now more clear that this article is about the company, not just the website, thus the original reason for deletion nomination no longer applies. Friday (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sms.ac
Seems to be entirely non-notable outside the context of the firm itself. We rarely have articles for the websites of individual companies. Just zis Guy you know? 22:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per nom. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 22:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep in light of this information, but I think the article should be about the company itself, and have the website mentioned in there. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 22:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I respectfully disagree. 364,000 hits. Not only that, but it is a significant website that has affected many people, myself included. Please note that Jimbo recently posted this up on the admin noticeboard, and actually said that the article was decent, just needed to be re-written. He never said it needed to be deleted. Themindset 22:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep merge with company's article. Create if doesn’t exist. Nookdog 22:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Alex rank is very good and any article that has generated as much debate as this one must be worth having around. StuffOfInterest 23:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. High traffic site . Haukur 23:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily meets WP:WEB &mdash; getcrunk   what?!  23:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Cautious Keep There seems to be some confusion over whether SMS.ac is a website or the name of a company. It's both. Largest mobile user community claim pushes me to keep, though a cautious one, as I'm concerned about the company's track record of spamming plus the fact that free user accounts often cause inflated community figures. Bwithh 23:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The article now reads "Sms.ac is a company" and not "Sms.ac is a website for a company". This should be evaluated under WP:CORP, not WP:WEB, non? JDoorj a m     Talk 23:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, company is notable enough under WP:WEB and WP:CORP, if perhaps not for the best of reasons. I don't believe deleting it because Jimbo stubified it is the best idea....(thinking along the lines of WP:SLOTH)....we just have to be more careful with verifiability.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable and highly controversial Riadlem 01:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable, if obnoxious, company. --John Nagle 03:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I have a 172KB file of sources including the NYTimes, Boston Globe, Washington Post, etc. Kotepho 08:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you put a few more in to beef the article up? Ans e ll  08:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep has enough notability for me. Needs to have the criticisms scrutinised though to make sure they are verifiable and not just bloggers having their two cents against the company. Ans e ll  08:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: as notable company, but keep out all the "Some bloke on the Internet said" stuff per Jimbo. Stephen B Streater 09:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: PS article is now about company, not website. Stephen B Streater 09:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Everyking 09:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Much as I hate the massive spam crap that they send, keep as per John Nagle. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have a pernicious feeling that this is going to end up at WP:OFFICE if we don't go very carefully about it. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep especially in light of the fact that it was stubbed yesterday by Jimbo from an article that had much substantial content on the company, prompting for rewrite, and was then tagged for deletion a few minutes after by someone else. --Raga 15:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think it was valuable to have this thought, and to consider it, but it seems that the company really is notable enough. Thanks to JzG for the nomination, even though it will apparently not go through.  I am commenting here as an ordinary editor, not making a proclamation or anything. --Jimbo Wales 15:58, 12 July 2006 (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.