Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOJO Works 2

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 of the debate was Delete. --Shanel 07:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MOJO Works

I'm relisting this. It was listed earlier today, and I closed it as a speedy deletion. However, another editor informed me that many of the voters in the prior AFD were GNAA members, and the speedy was not valid. I've therefore undeleted the article and relisted it here. All votes from the prior AFD have been copied here; to the closing admin, please make a decision over whether these votes should be counted or not. Ral315 (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes as copied from the first AFD

Non-notable advertising corporation, what makes them any different from 3000 other internet advertising businesses? Timecop 06:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete please -- Femmina 06:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete We really need to get rid of these non-notable stub articles. There are way too many. Cptchipjew 06:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, no notability claimed. Flyboy Will 08:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ (see below). In addition the links to companies are pipe links to spam and spyware. --Quarl 08:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above see below VegaDark 10:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted (see top) to December 26, 2005. Insert new comments below.

No vote, and apologies for the overzealous speedy. Ral315 (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only if existence and notability can be verified. --King of All the Franks 18:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Mediaplex. As far as I can tell, the MOJO products are Mediaplex's group of advertising tools. However, the name on their site to refer to the group seems to be "MOJO Suite" rather than MOJO Works. Alexa shows that Mediaplex has an Alexa Rank of 56, and until mid-2005 was ranked higher than Wikipedia. As much as I dislike internet advertising, this definitely seems to be a notable product and worth covering. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mediaplex, per above. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 18:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Ifnord 20:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
deleteper nom, blatent advert.Obina 23:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- JJay 00:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mediaplex per Starblind. Googling for "mojo works" and Alexa show "MOJO Works" as the name of the website, so perhaps it was the previous name of the company. --Quarl 02:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability. Endomion 04:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Mediaplex. Having a 1 liner article in wikipedia is just a waste, you don't see this in areal encyclopedia. --supers 07:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with your conclusion in this particular, but I hold a different opinion about one-liner stubs being useless. In an evolving article-space, they are useful as springboards of expansion. --Agamemnon2 08:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [blatent advertising, please delete] -- Aigis 02:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see above. -- Hosterweis 02:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 1 liner with no notability. Renata3 15:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Mediaplex, guess I kind of got on the bandwagon with speedy vote, but still think it's NN enough for an article of its own. VegaDark 04:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam Incognito 15:45, 1 January 2006 (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.