Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XanGo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] XanGo
Non-notable, nothing other than self references and rather ad-like. Shell babelfish 01:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Am I missing something, or is this the XanGo that gets close to 2 million g-hits? --Daniel Olsen 02:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Daniel Olsen. The external references ought to be improved, but I wouldn't go so far as to call this "ad-like" - were it an ad, I doubt they'd be so eager to advertise the fact that they engage in multi-level marketing. -Elmer Clark 04:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per Elmer Clark.-Kmaguir1 06:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, if only to warn people that this is a MLM company. However, someone besides me should be monitoring it to remove the adspeak. Those dang marketers are pernicious. As soon as you remove the bogus claims, they've added them again through another account. I was keeping an eye on this article, but I have greatly reduced my WP activity, due to frustration with POV pushers. Zora 06:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I just cleaned out the adspeak garbage. It will doubtless return. Zora 06:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per Daniel Olsen--mathewguiver 13:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - if the creators of the article are constantly reverting good edits and adding ad spam, the article should be relisted for deletion with that point made clear in the AfD. Either that or it should be permanently blocked from any further edits - once the spam has been removed again by Zora. Marcus22 14:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think blocking the ones spamming makes more sense because vandalism is not usually a criteria for deletion and even if it was this page could be reverted and protected. I don't beleieve that we would need to relist for that reason. --My old username 21:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - if the creators of the article are constantly reverting good edits and adding ad spam, the article should be relisted for deletion with that point made clear in the AfD. Either that or it should be permanently blocked from any further edits - once the spam has been removed again by Zora. Marcus22 14:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per high google hits thanks to Daniel Olson Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, seems to be quite well know topically rather than something that needs to adhere to WP:CORP. Being a spam magnet is not something that warrants deletion of an entire article. It can be protected or the links can be added to the spam blackhole. Would like to see more references; there's a jillion ghits to flip through. Kuru talk 20:42, 1 September 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.
