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. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwiti[edit]

Ubikwiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Restoring and taking to AfD per conversation here. Also left message at WT:WikiProject Business/Accountancy task force. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable, most references are self published or PR related, link to facebook homepage is irrelevant, smells like advert (point of view is artificially distant from the subject: "According to their website...").
• Keep

a. Ok, have removed many references which are 'self published' (and linking back to their website). b. Have removed the external link to Facebook (agree that everyone knows Facebook and their homepage link is not of any help). c. Ok, I have also removed the phrase "According to their website...". The reason I had included this phrase initially was because: i. It is true (I actually got the piece of information from their website) ii. I was following an example given somewhere on Wikipedia for their verifiability clause. i.e. All statements must be verifiable and better if it begins with "According to so and so...". (Sorry, can't locate the Wikipedia Help page for this now).Publiceyes (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Sounds like a sales pitch, and if kept; should be reworded. Renaissancee (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2009 (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.