Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual assistant

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The result of the debate was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Morgan Wick 04:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual assistant

Delete awful spam. Deprodded. I disabled all links by removing http:// - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination in light of the rewrite, now it's a normal stub about an occupation. Thank you, Adam. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Probably a copyvio. --djrobgordon 05:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs cleanup and removing of copyvios, sure, but seems to be an actual profession; appears not to spam for anyone in particular. Sandstein 05:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup. This article needs to be rewritten from the ground up as it is tremendously difficult to read and get a sense as to the nature of the subject.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

* Delete unless a major cleanup is done. Article has been a spam magnet since creation. Dlyons493 Talk 12:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep the rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 05:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 17:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. (I'd say, keep and cleanup, but there's nothing there that could be used in an encyclopedic article.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. OK, I was wrong. there is enough there for an article now. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Too much spam, not enough ham. --Transfinite 04:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Now that the spam ratio is down, I changed my mind. --Transfinite 04:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Sigh. Keep but Cleanup per Aero AdamBiswanger1 04:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I nominate Adam to clean this up. Oughtta be a rule on WP: if you're dogooder cleanup-voter, it's yours to clean up. Hehe... - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The article has been rewritten (purged of junk). Please cast your "votes" in light of this change. AdamBiswanger1 04:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Kudos to Adam for cleaning this up, based upon some outside research seems to be perfectly legit term[1][2]. Yanksox ^(talk) 05:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep now that the nom has been withdrawn. ---J.S (t|c) 18:42, 16 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.