Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free iPod

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. A redirect has been created, pointing to Gratis Internet. Mindmatrix 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free iPod[edit]

Spam. — A.M. 01:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam advertising.--MONGO 01:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam it is. Gazpacho 01:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this as spam. However, this marketing technique has become pretty ubiquitous (at least on college campuses). I bet someone could squeeze some encyclopedia out of it. ESkog | ^Talk 02:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. --King of Hearts 02:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam, annoying, annoying spam. Croat Canuck 02:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Freeipods.com and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freeipod com. Kusma (討論) 03:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and mention in pyramid scheme. Bmdavll _talk 04:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this as spam. However, something like Free iPod (scam) would probably be a good potential article, as those website have become annoyingly ubiquitous lately. (Bah, ESkog, you stole my word!) Mo0[talk] 05:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Why oh why is there no Speedy criterion for this sort of shit? Reyk
Delete spammy pyramid scheme. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete spam. --Bachrach44 13:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but cross-link to "pyramid schemes" or "frauds" as a record of the scams, for the education of someone who may look here to see if it is known about --SockpuppetSamuelson 15:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam aside, its not even intelligently and carefully written; besides even the title gives this garbage away.-MegamanZero 17:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam and badly written. Technostalgia

comment article is an orphan.Geni 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is spam and vandalism. (Bjorn Tipling 20:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Delete scamcruft. Dear me, some poor little souls are all upset because they didn't get a free lunch, and after they were promised one, too! A nasty mean company tricked them into falling for a blatant pyramid scheme! Oh, the humanity. — Haeleth Talk 20:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam and a suggestion that this particular topic be barred from recreation just because it will attract this type of spamming in the future. Jtmichcock 23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Clean Up: It's a notable trend in the world of the internet, and it is also a buisness model that other advertisers follow, I feel that this deserves an article, but it needs to be cleaned up. Deathawk 00:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: there's already a better article at Gratis Internet, and a redirect to there at Freeipods. — A.M. 02:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant spam. Delete (candidate for speedy deletion) and redirect to Gratis Internet. - Mike Rosoft 10:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. Cynical 12:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, it's certainly encyclopedic but needs to be cleaned of POV and the like. Stifle 22:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding...right..? -MegamanZero 22:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't. But I don't always agree today with what I wrote yesterday. Delete, unsalvageable. Stifle 11:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but possibly the scam itself should be entered in some scam article. Maybe free ipods should redirect to a scam article. Skittle 22:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gratis Internet, which seems to cover the same ground in a more neutral fashion. -Colin Kimbrell 17:04, 13 December 2005 (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.