Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CouponChief.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 delete. References cited do not amount to significant coverage. While a number of them are from reliable sources they are passing mentions, press release reprints or blogs and do not satisfy the requirements of the general notability guideline. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CouponChief.com

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

No significant coverage in the sources. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 17:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm a little reluctant to put in this vote, but the article looks well researched and referenced. The references also list some very well-known and respected sites, like the Wall Street Journal. Thus, I feel that deletion would be a bit of an extreme move. --Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 18:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The cited is not the WSJ news site but the blog of WSJ. Hence can not be considered reliable. Moreover the blog only mentions the name of the site only in a list of coupon site which can not be considered significant coverage- Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 17:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list of references looks impressive, but it's all passing mentions or inclusions in a long list of coupon companies. The only thing significantly about the company was an item in a trade magazine about them settling a lawsuit. WP:CORP requires SIGNIFICANT coverage and I'm not seeing it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with WritingEnthusiast14, the page seems to pass notability marginally. I cannot mark it for deletion. My decision will be keep.Ireneshih (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the article itself is well written but I disagree that the company has met notability. Proof of existence is not meeting criteria. EBY (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Echoing User:WritingEnthusiast14's comments, the article CouponChief is cited in respectable media sources, such as The Wall Street Journal, in addition to others such as The Huffington Post, Mashable, The Today Show, and Lifehacker. In addition, at least a few books also mention CouponChef. These are all reliable sources and the plethora of citations discussing the company clearly establishes its notability. However, at the same time, I would support the merging of the content from the section titled CouponChief.com#Consumer_response, into the body of the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:50, 5 October 2014 (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.