Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanity 800 Numbers

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 no consensus on Vanity 800 Numbers (editors are encouraged to boldly merge/redirect it if desired, or open a talk page discussion on the subject); delete 800response. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity 800 Numbers[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related page because it's all part of the same walled garden of spam; all the "research" is done by the company itself:

A disputed speedy. This should probably redirect to Phonewords but I thought this would be a useful first step. The article was created by a single-purpose account whose only interest is this industry; the article is essentially peacock terms about how wonderful these products are, everything traces back to a single company that sells these products, the "research" is all done by that company and putatively demonstrates the efficacy of its products, and seems to be cited word-for-word in uncritical publications that don't thereby qualify as reliable sources. The article's creator insists on the article's talk page that it's not Phonewords, it's Vanity 800 numbers -- which, to close the circle, is what this company calls them. Altogether, a walled garden of self-referential WP:SPAM. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Phonewords - At first it might appear to be spam, but there are a few interesting bits of information with references that should be carried over to Phonewords. Since vanity 800 numbers I believe is a valid search term, a redirect should be put in place. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I tend to agree, but I'm not aware of any "Articles for redirection" process to which I could have submitted this. Just wanted to mention that the interesting bits of information are almost certainly the product of the company in question; I'd be viewing them with more than a grain of salt. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Vanity 800 numbers, delete 800response. The 800 page is not apparently primarily spam, and the material appears reasonably encyclopedic. the other article is spam, and should be deleted as such. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toll-free telephone number. Delete 800response. Nageh (talk) 20:24, 6 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.