Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethical Ocean

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) 22:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical Ocean[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Do Not Delete. Notable company. Only online large scale source for ethical products. -- RamseyBenAchour (talk)

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) 00:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This is an online marketplace for ethical products and services in North America. "Ethical" in their usage seems to mean "vetted for political correctness". No showing that this business has had significant impacts on culture, history, or technology. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (My parentheses) "Ethics are currently separated into six categories: Eco-Friendly (Eco-friendly), Organic, Fair Trade, Animal-friendly (Animal rights), People-Friendly (shrug) and Social Change. Rather than verifying the claims of each product, the website employs a crowd sourced model for verifying claims under the six ethical categories,[5] and encourages rating and commenting of site users" I don't see PC in that list, but I do see POV, specifically IDONTLIKE, in the assertion that it is in there.

This is a means for people to choose how they themselves want to act; since PC is prevailing on others to act a certain way, is it ideologically sound to prevail on these people to not choose how they want to act, and then call them PC? Anarchangel (talk) 01:29, 9 March 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article could use more examples of real coverage, as a couple of the notability links seem to be a bit press releaseish. However, reference [[1]] seems to go a good way towards meeting the notability rule. Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 08:08, 12 March 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.