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 delete. (X! · talk) · @699 · 15:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn website ZagZagg (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This website list on Wikipedia Spam Blacklist. bookisa.com is dummy url and redirecting to bukisa.com --ZagZagg (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:RS. I can find no reliable secondary sources for this operation. Crafty (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article reads like a brochure. It fails to explain exactly how it contributes to anything outside of it, i.e. it is not notable. And, the article was created by a WP:SPA. Groink (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request The author, BlackWalker sited third party sources to show that Bukisa is a legitimate business. Why is Bukisa. com listed as a spam site even though there was a request to remove it as such, since it is not spam? Avivbehisrael 30 July 2009
The third party sources you refer to are a press release by the entity in question reproduced by Reuters online and a "review" on Mashable. Moreover the issue is not about Bukisa as a legitimate corporate operation, rather it's notability per our policies. Crafty (talk) 07:53, 30 July 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.