Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roozz

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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roozz

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

This article is a likely subject of paid editing coming from this post on freelancer dot com (the page is nonpublic but anyone can create an account for free to view it).

The page reads "I am currently looking for an experienced wikipedia writer. This writer must have knowledge in composing page(s) to the wikipedia requirements and He or She must have a current Wiki user account. The hired Freelance person should be able to hold an account with Wiki-to make changes to his or her created Wiki document. This job is to create a Wiki page for the Roozz technology. I will provide writer/editor a draft, but the hired freelancer will be responsible for it's accuracy, acceptable upon the wikipedia's site guidelines-with a guarantee of no deletions within a reasonable (negotiable) time. Part of the job will be to create / find notable references for the article. In your bid remember references to Wiki articles you have written / edited and your wiki account name."

This page should be deleted as paid editing spam and as an abuse of a volunteer-run encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for promotion. Them From Space 20:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only reference in the article is a press release. My own searches find press releases but no coverage in reliable sources. Press releases don't establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while it currently has only 1 ref it appears others are available and it does, IMO, just pass our notability guidelines (non-BLP). I will try to work on improving it over the next few days. Delete due to freelancer issues and the speedy deletion on Feb 18 on an article whose notability was always going to be marginal. I am neutral on this one tbh. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 14:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - That one reference is a press release. Currently there is no independent coverage listed in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given the freelancer comments I am removing my objection. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 15:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established by article, quick google search shows the usual free pages, weblogs, etc. no reliable sources to indicate this has any notability. the paid editing issues dont help the article in the slightest, to put it mildly.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No decent news sources in google. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2010 (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.