Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commision Junction

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 debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 17:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commision Junction moved to Commission Junction

Substub, adlike, of the two links at the bottom (Which comprise close to ½ the article) one is the subject itself, the other is a forum about them with ZERO posts. No Wikipedia pages link to it (The page). Should also mention they misspelled "Commission" ((Note: This was added to the AfC section after this page was created): Alexa rank in the 400s, but I'm still not sure of its notability.). 68.39.174.238

• Keep. Notable online marketing company. Among its clients are Yahoo and eBay. Alexa ranking of 431 Obviously it should be moved to Commission Junction. JoaoRicardo^talk 05:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Kappa 05:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Also, I don't know if anons should be starting afd listings. Rhobite 05:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As a rule, no, but User talk:68.39.174.238 shows the record of a pretty trusted user. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Anons can't create AfD pages since they can't create new articles. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• OK, I'll settle for renaming it and letting it die of neglect > ; D! (Consider this a withdrawl if you want). 68.39.174.238 05:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Do we really have to have pages for every e-marketing, click-targeting, advertising, sleazy spam scam on the internet? there are thousands of these companies.. google might be a place for them, but an encyclopedia is not. Jabo 07:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reason given by nominator, ie. Alexa rank. Calsicol 11:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanx to whoever rewrote it and moved it. As much as I dislike having "notable" articel that's unlikely to ever get very much larger then that, it's not such a blatant ad as to seem like AfD fodder. It's to late to withdraw though, based on the excellent point made above, though... 68.39.174.238 15:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 22:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Notability is official Wikipedia policy, despite your repeated claim to the contrary. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC))
    • No, it is not, unfortunately, though I believe it should be. See Wikipedia:Notability. It explicitly says: "There is currently no official policy on notability." JoaoRicardo^talk 18:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • See the official policy at WP:CSD in which speedy deletes can be performed on unremarkable people. Zoe (216.234.130.130 23:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC))
        • Yes, it is a strange situation. Maybe we should discuss it more on some other place. I'll start a discussion about it at the Village Pump. JoaoRicardo^talk 02:17, 20 December 2005 (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.