Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeFrugal.com (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 02:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BeFrugal.com

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails ORGCRITE, SIRS, and CORPDEPTH. Lacking sources with independent and significant coverage. Also see, ADMASQ. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom. Previous AfD in 2012 resulted in delete. According to the nom of that AfD this page was speedily deleted, recreated, and was still SPAM. It failed "...wp:corp or any other WP:N you want to use."

Two and one half years later, this page was re-created in July 2014 [1]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concur with nom; there's only the one short article in the Globe that gives any coverage at all to the subject, and that's just a pop culture piece because this outfit's CEO popped off as a publicity stunt. Ravenswing 18:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:06, 19 August 2021 (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.