Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upfront Rewards

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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:51, 3rd May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upfront Rewards

opinionated original research. And if that's stripped out, a credit card, no evidence it's a particularly common one. Just zis Guy you know? 10:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Maybe, possibly, use it as an example of Predatory lending, but I'm not excited about that option. --Elkman - ^(talk) 13:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete spam --Bachrach44 20:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Spamvertisement, linkspam, not encyclopedic, reads link an ad, is an ad, etc. ergot 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• keep It was NPOV and lacking original research a month or so ago. I'd be happy to clean it up, but I am waiting for an admin to (restore or) email the copy that was deleted from the archive so I have something to work with. It's not really possible to pass an opinon on this AfD without seeing the copy of this page prior to Zanimum deleting it clean out of the history. He deleted it because of disparaging statements about Upfront Rewards. Ping-pong... It was far more extensive, and had several references. Note, I made significant changes since the above 3 votes. Elvey 05:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as the changes are not really sufficient to address the issues brought up by the voters above. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• what issues remain, Tito, et. al? If you're not providing constructive criticism, you're just being rude. In IETF circles, at least, if you're unhappy with something, you're expected to suggest alternate wording. None of the complaints suggest that a good article on Upfront Rewards can't exist.

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.