Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TxtNation

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 was delete. --Coredesat 05:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TxtNation

TxtNation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Many google hits, but seems like a small company advertising on WP. TonyTheTiger 21:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• comment I added a few external links / references but the article is basically unverified, fails WP:V. I found most of the articles I found were press releases so I don't think we even have enough reliable sources to meet WP:RS. --Quirex 21:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing there that comes close to satisfying WP:CORP for me. The few articles I've found that mention the company do so in passing. CiaranG 08:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Improvement This article was absolutely not created for advertising purposes. The company has lacked a presence on WP, and while I agree the article is new and under-developed and its content needs greater verification, I don't believe it is a candidate for deletion. It would be nice to have the article improved to WP:CORP standard, however I believe this will come with time and subsequent additions/changes. Tempy 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 19:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The only things I'm finding on Google are press releases. The article makes no attempt at satisfying WP:CORP or WP:V. -- Kesh 22:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does seem to be an advertisement, though that's not a sufficient reason for deletion. What is sufficient is the total lack of legitimate sources. --The Way 01:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per my comment. It just doesn't pass WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CORP. --Quirex 04:06, 21 January 2007 (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.