Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compete, Inc

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. WjBscribe 04:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compete, Inc

Compete, Inc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No claim to notability (except blogs), blatant advertising, written pretty much by SPA. Prod deleted by article writer without comment. Qualifies for speedy but thought I'd see if anyone could turn up anything of value on them BozMo talk 09:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - there are references to demonstrate multiple coverage in third-party sources, although not all of this coverage qualifies as non-trivial and reliable (as the nominator says, some of the sources are blogs). I'd give it the benefit of the doubt, but it needs to be substantially rewritten to remove the advertising tone. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 11:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete The references seem almost all to be blogs, and the article reads like an Advertisement. NBeale 06:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 15:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Most if not all of the refs are not from appropriate sources. Written as an ad. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Difficult one. I vote Delete because I cannot see the notability of this outfit and the slogans in the article tending towards WP:Spam]. However, I would support a Weak Keep as well. HagenUK 20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  Had a closer look over the website and change my vote to Delete - full stop. I don't think this outfit is notable and specialist search engines are common. Therefore, on second thought I think it is more WP:Spam than useful information. HagenUK 19:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is indeed difficult. Right now, I say Weak delete, as it is borderline spam. Notability coule be proved, though, and a rewrite may make this acceptable. Realkyhick 21:15, 22 March 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.