Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DoubleClick

Obvious ad. -- Grunt 21:21, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)
copy of http://www.doubleclick.com/us/about_doubleclick/. A decent article about DoubleClick would be very welcome, however. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:31, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I started a real article. It needs to discuss the controversy over spyware which centered on DoubleClick instead of advertising for the company. The spyware is the only reason it became known to the public. - Tεx τ urε 21:34, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep texture's rewritten stub. Doubleclick is significant (even if it is just a significant annoyance). - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:38, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, although surely the original version is a copyvio, and we need to delete the article and create a new one with Texture's text, right? —Stormie 23:15, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
- I imagine that the original was probably created by an advocate or employee of the company but I don't object to deleting it as a copyvio and starting anew. - Tεx τ urε 23:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. They are quite a large company. I added some public info about them. I'm sure they will appreciate any feedback you would care to send them :> Thesteve 04:41, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keeep. According to our own article it is the tenth most visited website. - SimonP 14:04, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Like the common cold and mosquitos, they are annoyingly significant. Average Earthman 14:32, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It is a large company and very well known (even if for not the best reasons).
Keep (in current, non-advert form). Timbo 20:02, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
delete. terrible article. -Pedro 01:46, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)