Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network 21

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Network 21

• Delete Information is practically a commercial for the business and very pov. Needs a lot of cleanup. Since article was posted by an anonymous user with only 2 edits, it seems highly unlikely that there will be cleanup on it or that anyone will be willing to maintain it once it is cleaned up. Plus there is only 1 source for all the information, the company's website.TheRingess 04:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Since N21 is the largest organization in the world of its type, it is most appropriate to keep a reference on Wikipedia. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 195.92.67.65 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• To create context, take a look at the Logitech article, for example. It covers similar material to the N21 article, also has just one external link (to the company's webpage), and the history reveals a series of minor corrections of typos and incorrect links. In fact, if you trace it back to it's original creation, other than a few edits on it's "birth" day, it was 3 months before the 2nd edit, and another 3 months before the 3rd. The N21 article isn't even a month old - give it a chance to breath a little. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 195.92.67.65 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- advertisement, Amwaycruft. Haikupoet 06:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per TheRingess. I'm prejudiced by a hatred of MLM. Stifle 14:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• don't delete: I came looking for information on Network 21 and I found some. Indeed, it seems POV, but with some tweaking it can be made useful. Adding links to criticism is the least that can done. At least the talk page should have mentioned some issues, but it's completely empty?! Lio 08:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per TheRingess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 13 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.