Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1saleaday

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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1saleaday

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why This article does little more than promote H66666666 (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article in its current form has loads of POV problems and runs a foul of WP:SPAM, but some of the references given do hint at at least borderline notability. 2 says you, says two 15:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in this article is sourced by major news outlets. It is not slanted toward the company in any way and keeps a very neutral point of view. I don't see how this page would be considered any different than that of Woot! Woot or Groupon Groupon, two similar sites to 1SaleADay.com. Please keep in mind the second half of G11: Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. Mordechai10 (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from what has already been written, several other editors have contributed to the article including an edition to the Trademark Dispute section, which is a part of the notability of the article. Mordechai10 (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Mordechai10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 17:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did have thoughts of tagging it for spam, but thought again as it didn't fully meet the requirements. There's always the possibility that it was intended as spam, but it looks well enough referenced - just about. There's quite a few refs, but some aren't exactly indicators of notability. The wording is fairly NPOV. Should be OK so long as someone keeps an eye on it. Peridon (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With the marketing section deleted by OSborn, this article is well sourced and has a NPOV. Seems mostly factual. The WIPO trademark dispute section certainly has significant notoriety and independent interest to the legal community - that is why I added to that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.151.100 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:55, 12 January 2011 (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.