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. MBisanz ^talk 14:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EliteAnswers.com[edit]

EliteAnswers.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Note this is a repost of the thrice deleted Eliteanswers.com, (AfD) but a speedy has been declined. It's not blatant spam and not exactly the same. The awards it claims are weak and most of the sources are repeats of the same press release and/or don't mention the company. A search doesn't reveal mch more to work with. I'm happy to withdraw this if someone can establish notability, but it's not clear here. An e-mail marketing company should have more web notability at the least and there's no evidence this meets WP:CORP. TravellingCari 02:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sorry to disagree, Cari, but if you do a Google search under the name "EliteWeb" (the company's original name, which is cited in the article), you will find a good chunk of impressive coverage, but I think the article could benefit from a rewrite -- and its sloppy structure may have resulted in its journeys to deletion. But I think this needs editing, not erasure. (I had erroneously entered something else in doing the Google search, hence my scratching out that earlier part of the message). Ecoleetage (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After looking through the plethora of sketchy and borderline sources (most of them press releases and one-liners), it does not appear that this particular website/company is notable. By any stretch. Keeper ǀ 76 02:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Each and every reference given in the article or found via google originiated from a press release or similar PR (including the interviews). EliteAnswers/Eliteweb fails WP:WEB, WP:CORP & WP:NOTE. --Amalthea^Talk 03:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete the articles do look very much like press releases. What we need,of course, is some actual verifiable information about how important they are. things likes sales, and number of employees, and market share, and basics like that. The only actual fact is they've been around since 1999, which isn't bad for the field, but not enough. DGG (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable spam. X MarX the Spot (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:WEB. -- Alexf⁴² 11:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, spammy and doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB. If kept, then most of the external links have to go. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 4 of the links presented are from prweb, which allows any company or entity to publish a press release. These are most definitley not WP:RS. The article is very ad-like, and has been deleted numerous times. The company is a run-of-the-mill email spam company. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Yet another non-consumer business services business that thinks a Wikipedia article would be good for business. Execrable prose speaks repeatedly of "business solutions", a strongly non-neutral term that suggests conflict of interest. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it appears the article is heading for deletion, I will try to rewrite it at a later date (if it is not salted), with proper referencing and neutral language. I would do it now, but it appears this will take some time and real life doesn't allow me the leisure to currently pursue this. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:03, 27 September 2008 (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.