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 speedy delete as G4 and G11, and salt. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eliteanswers.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Was G11'd several times and recreated. After the nominator asked why it kept getting deleted, I took a look and decided that it is quite spammy but not worthy of a G11 in my opinion. Weak delete because it might be notable, mainly listing for consensus. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This page has a huge problem with sources. All the sources are from marketing oriented sites. Its showing its notability using sites like prweb.com. eliteanswers is not a reliable source, that is the site itself. See our guideline on reliable sources.
  • It also has phrases like "partner to protect American children from adult targeted emails", which are there to promote the company. —— nixeagle 20:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also see one of the sources is http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/sellinggame/video.html which is being used to show that the owner of the company was on tv, but the problem is that the link there does not say that. :(. —— nixeagle 20:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under CSD G4 - this article has already beed deleted via an AfD discussion this week, it still appears to be as spammy. – Toon^(talk) 20:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as G4 if substantially the same as the one from earlier. It was spam then and it is spam now. Good intentions of the original author or not they need to go back and follow the advise that people gave them about the article in userspace until it is properly notable, properly verifiable, an no longer an attempt to "sell" stuff. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G4. Advertising for NN site. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sources are all from the same website and ad portals. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy G4 perhaps with a pinch of salt – Zedla (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.