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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greenway movers[edit]

Greenway movers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy tags are being repeatedly removed by a probably sockpuppet (or meat puppet). Concerns are G11 and A7. Eeekster (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Page is both informative and unbiased. Other pages far less informative within encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skippy420 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC) — Skippy420 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• no changes were made by a bot, just a human flesh and blood. Page similar to prime van lines and thousands of others and is not in anyway bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skippy420 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC) — Skippy420 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• KEEP: I'm saying keep, all attributions are there (UTC)

G11 is a no go because it has been written from a neutral perspective.

A7 is a no go because it has refrences that show it is both notable and relevant.

I think there is nothing wrong with this page, it follows all guidelines and is unbias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.65.169 (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC) — 99.46.65.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• dont think it qualifies as a G11, article is written from a netural point of view and is facts.

dont think it qualifies as a A7 as there are refrences showing the article is relevant and notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadhennington (talk • contribs) 06:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Original arguments of A7 and G11 are valid. The article is too close to an advertisement. A general search for any WP:N shows no news articles and only some personal reviews. Should be tagged as db:spam. Pmedema (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete - Original arguments are not valid, please see other pages within industry. I searched google and found articles about this company, see prime van lines as a accepted article very similar in wording to this one, makes no sense to delete this article but allow ones like that. Just because a general search did not pick-up any news doesnt mean there isnt any.

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.