Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No More AOL CDs

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. Mailer Diablo 14:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No More AOL CDs

This isn't an encyclopedia type of entry. Basicly all it is, is just a campaign against a company. Articles like this, don't add anything meaningful to this site. Peter Tangney 18:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Easily verifiable, has been mentioned in a non-vanity book, featured on the CBC, Network Computing, PC World, Fast Company, etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Jeff. The site's Alexa ranking is around 1,000,000, but the phrase (in quotes) gets over 30,000 G-hits. It's apparently an important enough topic to have an article in another language, too. But I'm mostly voting keep because of Jeff's research. -- Kicking222 19:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Jeff — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 21:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Reasonable notability established. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Badlydrawnjeff. The article does look like an advertisment though. --Starionwolf 00:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. "Basically all it is, is just a campaign against a company"? Well, yes... Which has nothing to do with whether it is notable or deserves to be here. I would say keep anyway. Grandmasterka 04:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not (yet) a dumping ground for random bits and pieces of information and marketing. Bwithh 05:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what product these folks are marketing, but this article reaches no speedy criteria. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 05:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per badlydrawnjeff. The subject is a campaign against a company, not the article. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 19:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per badlydrawnjeff. ~Chris {^t_c^e_@} 20:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There are some POV concerns in the later paragraph, but the article itself is encyclopedic, as shown by badlydrawnjeff. —Cuiviénen^T|C|@ on Sunday, 28 May 2006 at 20:37 UTC
• Keep, per badlydrawnjeff. xompanthy 21:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Organization appears notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:55, 30 May 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.