Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TopBargains

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TopBargains[edit]

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

PROD removed apparently with the basis that the improvements were enough but they are not, searches at all major Australian newspapers have no found anything better than the listed and, even then, these listed are simply mentions including as either website listings or guides. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails all our tests of notability (also promotional in present form, but that could be cured). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is very subjective and this article has better sources than almost all other sites in Category:Australian websites. This deletionism means all those pages should also deleted. Deleting a well-written, well-sourced article on the basis of subjective personal assessment of notability is not fair. Plus it would be nice to see editors making or suggesting improvements to an article before using delete tags.Newusers112 (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SEWAGE. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Reliable secondary sources with indepth coverage of the subject (and independent of the subject) are needed. Clearly lacking here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think its an EGO issue for some people so doesn't really matter as this is going to be deleted anyways. What really is failing here is the trigger happy attitude. I wasted an hour of my time today to add additional sources to this page but I am confident nobody has looked at them or verified them. Its very surprising that the very user who nominated this page for deletion has been maintaining/defending some very poorly written referenced pages. Newusers112 (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(I indented your comment above). I did have a look at the sources and I searched on my own as well. Notability is not about the sources present in the article. It is about the sources which are available out there. In AfD debates, we search for such sources. Sometimes the article just doesn't make the cut and we have to delete it. I understand you are feeling frustrated but we have to set the standards for notability somewhere.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet CORPDEPTH. This is the best that sources can provide "TopBargains was created in 2007[12] and has been online since then. It was listed in Top 100 Australian start ups list.[13] The site now claims to have over 300,000 registered members.[14]"? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references either just include it along with other sites or mention it incidentally--and most of them are unreliable. The only substantial one is the Huffington Post, and that publication is so erratic in its standards that I think we no longer consider it a RES for the purposes of notability . We should of course look at similar articles, which, as mentioned, may be even worse. DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 10 August 2016 (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.