This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Apollo58 (talk | contribs) at 17:47, 23 August 2007 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:47, 23 August 2007 by Apollo58 (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)