Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeFrugal.com

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BeFrugal.com[edit]

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

WSJ reference, but on their blog, and that is the best of them. Advertising. Would have CSD'ed it but the weak refs would have held up. Speedied before for ad, recreated, still spam. Fails wp:corp or any other WP:N you want to use. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm doing a search and while it does come up with some hits, the site is only mentioned in passing as an example of such or such of a site. I'm not really finding anything so far that would show that this is overwhelmingly notable per WP:CORP. I did do a little cleanup on the page, removing the multiple hotlinks in the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete. I did a major overhaul of the article, but there's just nothing out there to show that this company is overwhelmingly notable. They do have a product that's received some buzz, but not the in-depth coverage that would be needed to save it from deletion. As for the original state of the article, it was unambiguously promotional and a formal AfD would probably help if/when someone tries to recreate it before the company has established true notability. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better now. The problem is that the majority of these coupon/savings/whatever websites seldom achieve notability in a couple of years, regardless of their utility. I found the same thing as to references, almost all are press release type or passing mentions, nothing that is genuine significant coverage. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dennis Brown. While notability is not temporary, websites appear and disappear regularly. They need some kind of significant effect on the offline world to get to notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the fence about this one - there's actually some reliable sourcing, enough that I wouldn't ordinarily vote delete, except that it seems mostly to be in response to the website's fly or drive calculator, which looks like it may be a one time phenomenon. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2012 (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.