Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XOOM

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 keep. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 20:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XOOM

Tagged for speedy, contested. This is not about Xoom but about an Indian ~~rip-off~~ clone. Just zis Guy you know? 16:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a mention of the Indian site at the end of the article, but most of the article is about Xoom the former free web host. The article once contained much more mention of the Indian site, but almost all of that information has been removed. --Takeel 16:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An update - I have removed all references to the Indian company from the article. After reviewing the contribution history of the editor who added that information, I learned that they have a history of referral spamming, including the XOOM article. The editor has been warned once. I warned them again. --Takeel 16:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's nothing deletion-worthy about this article. --phh (^t/_c) 17:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Ardenn 18:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with keep on Takeel's much better version; I'm not entirely convinced it was ever notable but it's mostly harmless and a piece of history on teh Intarwebs, so what the heck. Just zis Guy you know? 20:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They were notable and were bought by NBC. Mike _{(T C)} 22:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A defunct notable web company in the late 1990s. Bought by a major corporation. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 01:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Who What Where Nguyen Why. davidzuccaro 13:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current version is acceptable. Optichan 17:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable, and I also feel the current version is perfectly fine. — TheKMan^talk 22:13, 30 April 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.