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. Tyrenius (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kre8tiveworkz[edit]

Spammy article on a company with iffy notability. Article creator has removed advert and coi tags without improving the article. He has claimed here that he is not Todd Edwards, CEO of the company, but had signed previous posts here and here under that name. The same editor has also repeatedly created the spam article Reality Rhyming® about the company's main product. Reference list does contain a valid reference or two, but most links are irrelevant. If the article is kept, it should be stubified. --Finngall ^talk 18:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. This article follows all of your guidelines exactly. Everything can be verified, it's all factual, significant to the world and not self promoting. The Hallmark Greeting Cards article was even used as a guide to write this one. Please advise and thank you. BHammycurls (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails our guideline WP:CORP (notability for businesses). Fails the primary notability criterion. Google News Archive search turns up only press releases. --Dhartung | Talk 20:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable business, considering that this company created a new writing style of the written language and rhyme methodology, its cultural popularity has gone way up in society. Celebrities have even picked up on it. Google News Archive search turns up press releases, but other reliable sources as well. Keep it as a stub if anything. --Fantasyfest (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Fantasy — Fantasyfest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. By the book article - verifiable, good cites, etc. prove corporate notability. Needs cleanup for tone, but otherwise, it's a fine stub. Am I missing something? Bearian (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as most of the sources seem to be media releases and independent coverage seems to be short. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did a Google search and found a few more reliable sources. Meets notible criterion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.129.144 (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC) — 65.3.129.144 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per Bearian, hopefully additional sources of a non-promotional nature can be dredged up soon, but I think this is notable enough. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just heard him on an NPR Radio interview. It ran a few times this past Friday morning. — 98.203.19.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.