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 and stub.-Wafulz 16:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunhill International List Company[edit]

Dunhill International List Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested prod; original reason was "No sources, no assertion of notability, written by PR staff." My own opinion is provisional delete unless article is rewritten with independent sources. Chick Bowen 20:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seen as a leader in the mailing list business. Referenced in the book "No Place to Hide" as one of the founders of the mailing list revolution. [1]--Ispy1981 21:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Still needs to be rewritten. Chick Bowen 21:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

; Note to closing editor:Please check whether the article has been created by someone working in the company.It appears so as all the edits of the user are about this company and the talk.I am not sure whether it is allowed in Wikipedia through I do not think this is an advertisement but check this.The user name is also Dunhilljoe

• Keep if okay Harlowraman 00:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dunhilljoe makes clear that he works for the company here. Chick Bowen 00:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, spammy article, but notable company. WP:COI could tip it over but I think it could easily be improved. --Dhartung | Talk 02:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless a lot of changes are made. In its current form it's a blatant advertising/puff piece. --Orange Mike 19:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Stubify and keep; sprotect if necessary. This is one of those cases where the subject is notable but the article is clearly unacceptable for our project. Usual procedure in these cases seems to be to reduce the article to a stub and allow it to be restarted organically; however, I would additionally suggest that in this particular case the article also be sprotected if marketing copy continues to be inserted or if WP:COI issues continue to arise. Heather 16:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, While the company may need an article, this is the worst of starts mired in COI. Until(1 == 2) 07:19, 25 July 2007 (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.