Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECOST.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Nja247 08:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ECOST.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable subsidiary for failing WP:CORP PirateSmackK (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete under A7. E Wing (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notabe company. Iowateen (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep per this Google News Archive search. Here are news article from The Dallas Morning News, one from Memphis Business Journal, and another from Los Angeles Business Journal. This company easily passes WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote Changed to Keep per Cunard. Iowateen (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. It does have mention in business pages, but bear in mind that these "articles" are often regurgitations of corporate press releases, referring to single events such as a merger rather than explaining why the company is notable. I'd be happy to see it deleted, but equally as happy to see it expanded using non-self-serving secondary sources. Fences and windows (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2009 (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.