Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EToys.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The result was keep as nomination was withdrawn and clearly the consensus was to keep it. Turnstep 13:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EToys.com[edit]

Delete: Just another failed internet company with no evidence of meeting WP:WEB (contested prod) — Tivedshambo (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable icon of the dot-com bust, along with Pets.com and others. Often given as a prime example of a failed ".com". — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 16:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dark Shikari. The article's not very good, but this is arguably the third biggest dotcom bomb of all time, after Pets.com and Kozmo.com. --Aaron 17:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep One of the most notable and well-remembered dot-com busts. A Google Books search shows 915 results in published books, especially relating to its IPO and subsequent fall. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, iconic as Shikari says.[1] Gazpacho 18:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I created the article from a disambig page; I had not heard of it until then. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dark Shikari. This was one of the most notable dot com companies to go under. Its rise and fall was well publisized back then. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 22:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Okay I accept the above. I've never heard of it either, but if someone can find and include a couple of citations that meet the criteria of WP:WEB I'll remove the nomination. — Tivedshambo (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top ten dot.com flops from CNET [2]. I'll look for more, but my fish is burning... Dina 23:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon link [3] for a book written about the etoy vs. etoys controversy (which I remember reading about a great deal at the time.) Dina 23:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not try to Google? The obvious search for Etoys.com + failure gives 11K hits. You can find many reliable sources that clearly show that Etoys.com is one of the oft cited busts of the dot-com era, e.g. [4] [5] [6] Pascal.Tesson 01:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination might need be documented as a classic "rush to judgment" based on an editor simply having "never heard of" the subject with little or no investigation. This would assist in any proposal of revising afd policies --Marriedtofilm 23:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me some good faith. I do not nominate articles for deletion simply because I haven't heard of the subject. I nominated it for the reason stated in the nomination - namely that there was no evidence of notability in the article according to the criteria specified in WP:WEB. Once some citations were produced, I was happy to change my mind. Incidentally, the onus should not be on an editor or user to do further research outside Wikipedia to verify an article; all citations should be provided within the article itself. — Tivedshambo (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination didn't only state there were no citations of notability (an understandable argument), but it starts with "Just another failed internet company" which alot of editors might label POV. But the issue is not with you (I personally do beleive you made this nom in good faith), but that an afd for an iconic company article probably shouldn't have gotten this far, although with following WP:DEL policy it was allowed to do so. With the increasing global interest and scrutiny in Wikipedia as a reliable reference and this is now the 14th website in the world, something like this might be noted by a much larger amount of people than this discussion's contributors. As allowed, it was flagged for notability and went to afd in only 5 days after the article's creation. In my opinion, I think many would believe that in this case that shouldn't have happened as notability likely would've been settleled in a more reasonable amount of time before it got to this level. If there is a future debate on afd policy, this discussion would be a useful reference. --Marriedtofilm 07:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep iconic, and I will always remember Israel the Hawaiian singer singing that song on the lovely commercial, before he passed away. Smeelgova 01:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep but obviously needs cleanup & expansion to establish historicity. (Smeelgova: Israel Kamakawiwo'ole died years before you saw that ad.) --Dhartung | Talk 03:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per WP:DEL#Early closure - There is a clear consensus and I have withdrawn my nomination for the above reasons. — Tivedshambo (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2006 (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.