Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flyin.com

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. "Give it time" is not a valid retention argument.  Sandstein  12:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyin.com

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

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

advertising The Banner talk 01:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now with changes. It's not blatant advertising ("buy X product now, here's the link") I think if the promotional materials were removed, there is enough left behind to have an encyclopedic article. It notes awards won and claims to be the first of its type in its country. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The creator has also stated on my talk page here that they want to work to make the needed changes; I think they should be given the chance to do so. 331dot (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Up to now the original author did not change a single character... The Banner talk 21:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People do have other things to do in their lives, as we all do. It's still early. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we support advertising by doing nothing? The Banner talk 21:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not blatant advertising. That said, I think we are approaching the end of a reasonable period of time for improvement. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject belongs to a company called Saudi Ebreez, and the article was created by SPA User:Saraebreez, well, looks like they have nothing else to do but promoting this company. It's not like any odd volunteer would sacrifice his time to edit the article. Kraxler (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article created only about a week ago. Give it time for improvement. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was actually gonna close this as Keep but unbelievably since this was nominated there's been no improvements at all to the article, I do and I don't think it's blatant advertising but either way I think the best thing for this article is to be deleted & rewritten, If no improvements have occurred now at it's most "vulnerable" time than it never will happen. –Davey2010^Talk 03:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - moderately spammy, borderline G11. Agree with Davey2010: WP:TNT. --Randykitty (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2015 (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.