Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluetooth advertising

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 No concensus (default keep). for detailed rationale see talk page. JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bluetooth advertising

Bluetooth advertising (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete article just seems to be promoting an entirely new way for spammers to attack. Article is also an apparent WP:COATRACK to promote the adpod product. Mayalld (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Just a bunch of advertising. Tavix (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. There's nothing there, not even an assertion of notability. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep per improvements including at least two good sources. Bearian, a/k/a Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - bluetooth advertising is notable (and in my personal opinion, vile and evil). The current article is exactly as stated by the nom, a thinly disguised vehicle to tout the adpod. I've rewritten it as a referenced stub. -- Whpq (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete even after rewrite. The current text announces existence of yet another technology to push more ads (WAP advertising anyone?). The single statistical data is not sufficient to say how much successful the technology will be over long time. (Mis)Use of Bluetooth for ads is mentioned in the main text and the example may be added there. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply But the primary criteria for notability is that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The Wall Street Journal and CNN are undoubtedly reliable sources. And if you look at the references used in the article, they are from 2005, 2006, and 2007. So it seems to me that this satisfied WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:V. -- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep It writes (and warns) about a technology to spread spam. Similarly, we could delete articles about spam, thieves or biological warfare. All these things exist and people should be aware of them. Nevertheless, I would rename the article to "bluetooth spam" or a similar name.147.175.98.213 (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2008 (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.