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. - Bobet 11:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable; fails WP:CORP. 38 Google hits [1]. Author has been spamming repeatedly [2] [3]. Haakon 18:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Thryduulf 21:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for seeming to spam - I had no intention of doing so. I created the music4uonline page in response to the fact that various of our competitors receive mention here, something which we feel is unfair in a business setting. I have no problem with what I wrote being dramatically slimmed down, or entirely re-written by someone else, but I do not feel that it is fair to remove it altogether, as long as our competitor's pages remain in existance. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezza1506 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia has no obligations regarding fair business. We write an encyclopedia, which covers notable subjects. Your competitors may or may not be notable -- if they're not, they should be deleted too. But if they are, that does not mean every other similar company has to be covered as well. Encyclopediae are not yellow pages. Haakon 08:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally appreciate this, and although I would prefer to see a mention remain here, I have no real problem with the page being removed, as long as this does not leave us without representation in a location where some of our competitors are represented. I do notice that one that was in existence yesterday has been removed (YCD Multimedia Ltd), but if you look at the 'similar companies' section on Muzak, or at the DMX Music page in general, you will see catalogues of competitors for whom I can see no real merit in their having a mention if we don't. Muzak is a different matter - their name is synonymous with a music style, and I can therefore see a perfectly good reason for its existance here on Wikipedia. In short, if you do intend to remove the music4u page, please also remove those of our competitors - the market is complex enough without advantages being given in neutral zones on the Internet. Apologies to anyone who has been angered by my post - I saw our competitor's pages, and felt that we required a mention too. Hezza1506 09:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have no right to "representation" here. The other articles have to be evaluated on their own merits. You are more than welcome to nominate them for deletion if you can demonstrate their lack of notability. Haakon 09:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the fact that I have evidently annoyed you - this was never my intention. Nor do I feel that we have a 'right' to representation, I was simply trying to explain what made me create the page in the first place. I would happily nominate them for deletion, except that a) I am clearly biased and it seems as unfair to them as I would consider it to be to us, b) as you have probably gathered, I am not well versed in the 'rules' of wikipedia, and would not therefore know where to start in suggesting their removal and c) much as I would like to have the time to spend learning about the ins and outs of the site, I don't have - I have a company to market, and wikipedia is not on my list of priorities for marketing - for obvious reasons. All I ask is that when considering this for removal, people also bear in mind the presence of other sites of equal merit (or lack of merit, as the case may be). Hezza1506 09:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Delete. Hezza, if you'd care to do the legwork of assembling a list of links to the entries you feel are questionable and post them to my talk page, I'll be happy to look them over and NFD them if they are of a similarly inappropriate vein. That's not to say I can or will delete them, but I'll put it up for discussion if I find them to be in the same spammy vein as your article. NB: Please stop adding your company's information to the Music Licensing page. I worked hard to create it, and others have worked hard to add to it, and I'd like for it to remain useful information rather than an advertisement. I would respectfully suggest that anyone looking on a Wiki for a vendor for services like this is probably not the most astute businessperson in the world anyway - there are far better resources to find commercial services.lowgenius My Talk Page 18:24, 8 September 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.