| Revision as of 17:00, 23 August 2007 editFrozenPurpleCube (talk | contribs)9,603 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:47, 23 August 2007 edit undoApollo58 (talk | contribs)223 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>--] 16:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)--</small> | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>--] 16:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)--</small> | ||
| *'''Comment''' Funny how this made it to good article status then. ] 17:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' Funny how this made it to good article status then. ] 17:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Have they changed the way articles make it to "good" status recently? Because I have always thought of that process as absurdly subjective. One spam account creats an article and the next spam account awards it "good" status.-] 17:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:47, 23 August 2007
Technomancer Press
- Technomancer Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This article's content is comprised of thinly disguised spam promoting the company, whilst its products are listed in detail in the article body, the reference and external links sections. Strip away the self-promotion and the peacock language, this advertorial fails to demonstrate notabilty, which is yet to come. --Gavin Collins 16:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 16:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)--
- Comment Funny how this made it to good article status then. Mister.Manticore 17:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Have they changed the way articles make it to "good" status recently? Because I have always thought of that process as absurdly subjective. One spam account creats an article and the next spam account awards it "good" status.-Apollo58 17:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)