Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XanGo: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
question on vote |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
asdf |
|||
===[[XanGo]]=== |
|||
Non-notable, nothing other than self references and rather ad-like. Shell <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 01:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Strong Keep''' Am I missing something, or is this the XanGo that gets [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=XanGo+juice&btnG=Search close to 2 million g-hits]? --[[User:Daniel Olsen|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]]. -[[User:Elmer Clark|Elmer Clark]] 04:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''', per Elmer Clark.-[[User:Kmaguir1|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. [[User:Zora|Zora]] 06:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: I just cleaned out the adspeak garbage. It will doubtless return. [[User:Zora|Zora]] 06:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''', per Daniel Olsen--[[user:mathewguiver|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. [[User:Marcus22|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. --[[User:My old username|My old username]] 21:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' Per high google hits thanks to Daniel Olson [[User:MichaelBillington|Michael Billington]] ([[User talk:MichaelBillington|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/MichaelBillington|contribs]]) 02:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Eh? Did you mean Keep? [[User:Kuru|<font color = "#cd853f">'''Kuru'''</font>]] [[User talk:Kuru|<font color = "#f5deb3"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]] 20:43, 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. [[User:Kuru|<font color = "#cd853f">'''Kuru'''</font>]] [[User talk:Kuru|<font color = "#f5deb3"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]] 20:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:45, 1 September 2006
asdf