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 speedy deleted by User:^demon. Deli nk (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AdultMerchantPay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable merchant account provider. Google Search has a few hits, ([1]), but they all appear to be copies of press releases and the like issued by the company. No third-party comment or coverage that would indicate notability, as far as I can see. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 10:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge all content into Emerchantpay. Seems to not be too notable, with hardly any reliable, independent sources except for one trivial mention. Littleteddy (roar!) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The usual practise for merging content from one page to another is to redirect the source title to the target page, in order to preserve authorship information as required by the GFDL. If you think a redirect from this title to Emerchantpay should not exist, then an administrator can also do a history merge, but you should give an explicit justification as to why having a redirect would be harmful, per Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?. cab (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no merge to Emerchantpay as I see no evidence either one is notable (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). cab (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Page was redirected to AdultmerchantPay, which I nominated for CSD before I realized there was already an AfD for this equivalent page. Clear CSD G11 anyway. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Debate essentially over AdultmerchantPay was CSD#G7'd (original author blanked page) so this article is now a CSD#R1. So tagged, goodbye. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2008 (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.