Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EightStar

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. W.marsh 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EightStar

Delete This is clearly an advertisment. information written and sourced entirely by company. Librarianofages 02:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --JChap 03:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - The company does seen to get around 10,000 ghits once you exclude wikipedia, gnu, etc. If someone were to rewrite it as a decent article or stub I would change my vote. Megapixie 03:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising, unless the advertising can be removed and a decent article can be written about it. --Coredesat 07:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence shown that the company passes WP:CORP Kevin 09:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement. Tychocat 09:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are under 400 Ghits (not 10k) many of them for a LaTeX symbol. Dlyons493 Talk 12:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity - what search string are you using ? this search brings back about 10k results. Are you excluding similar results ? Megapixie 05:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That search give 225 distinct Ghits by my count - just go to the last one. The seach I did myself was just for EightStar. Dlyons493 Talk 13:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm, to be fair searching for DeBeers only brings back 770 unique ghits. DeBeers and Diamond brings back 713. Admittedly it brings back 398,000 non-unique hits. So I don't think the uniqueness criteria is that great an idea - since are we saying that this company is 1/4 as notable as DeBeers ? That's still pretty notable. Megapixie 13:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Somewhat notable, but the manner in which is written in makes it read like an advertisement. If someone can give it a re-write, I may be inclinded to change to keep.--Auger Martel 10:49, 17 June 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.