Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MediaZone.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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaZone.com

Delete spammy article about a web sports service - was originally tagged speedy for copyvio, tags removed pending permission being received, don't know whether it was, but this website in not notable Alexa rank of 14,232. Carlossuarez46 02:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is as much a gut feeling as anything, but the company sems to be notable due to the corporate partners and events it webcasts. It reads a little like a news release, but I think this company is notable because of its affiliation with notable events. But this a pretty close call. Realkyhick 02:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be an awful lot of red links for something that is supposed to be notable and "global". I'd nuke it for being a pseudo-advert. --WebHamster 05:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Maybe a re-write with more corporate data.Mbisanz 06:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - references establish adequate notability. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM per Carlossuarez46. Lack of independent sources suggest notability to come. --Gavin Collins 11:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM. Article created by single purpose account that also created a half-dozen or so related articles the same session, most of which have already been deleted. Precious Roy 13:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge to Naspers? Current sources a touch iffy, and the concerns about COI and spam certainly warrant consideration. Only obviously valid and reliable source, the nytimes piece, is now inaccessible and makes no mention of the firm in the summary - can anyone confirm that it's relevant? Regardless, the article is short enough that it would make sense to merge it back into its parent. MrZaius^talk 07:44, 7 September 2007 (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.