Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gearheaddeals

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gearheaddeals

Gearheaddeals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I don't really see notability here. It's a new web site, and the only sources given are effectively just reports of press releases - I can find no reliable 3rd party coverage. I originally deleted it as A7, and have had a discussion of it on my Talk page, where the creator has been unable to find any better sources either. Also, the creator has been working on a new and less promotional version in user space at User:Bmwm3guy/Gearheaddeals, so I don't know why this older and more promotional version would be preferred anyway. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize that I may have made the wrong link, but per the recommendation of Boing! I have created a less "promotional" sounding page. This is in my userspace and is the the one I meant to be discussed here as being the one that is published. I also disagree, but the main source I listed is reliable 3rd party source. It would be like the Washinton Post or CNN writing an opinion story on the website. This "autoblog" is a huge news website that is equivalent to those two other news sites, but for the automotive news community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmwm3guy (talk • contribs) 16:07, 18 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • To my knowledge, neither the Washington Post nor CNN regurgitate completely unedited press releases, like this "autoblog" does. [1]. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I just changed the public version to match my draft version that is less "promotional" sounding. Could you all pelase help me fix the article so that it is acceptable to you all? I've read the opinions that others have written that they think there is something here. How do I add enough information that, or what kind of information, will convince you all of this? I can try to contact the site owners for any more intimate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmwm3guy (talk • contribs) 16:19, 18 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

  Hi. I've had a look around, myself, but as I tried to explain on my Talk page, the problem isn't that you are not writing the article properly with sufficient information, it is that you are not providing the kind of sources we need for the site to satisfy Wikipedia's WP:NWEB requirements - have a read of the "Criteria" section specifically. All of the references given are just press releases, and there isn't a single piece of genuine 3rd party editorial material there. If the necessary sources don't exist, then no rewriting will make it better. Getting more intimate info from the site owners won't help, as that would be primary sourced information and not the third party sources that we need. I think the only thing that will help is if you can find genuine third party sources that satisfy WP:RS and which provide actual independent coverage of the site. I couldn't find any when I looked (during our earlier conversation), and I have to doubt they are there. But that doesn't mean the site will be forever non-notable - if it succeeds in making the mark it hopes for, then other people will surely sit up and take notice and actually write about it, and when that happens there will be a much better chance of justifying an article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: a start-up website that gives users daily deals related to automotive parts and accessories. It was created in May 2011. References all seem to be to blogs or unreliable business buzz ("trendhunter.something") sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete lack of WP:RS sources. If the blogs were doing major review or something, that would count, but as is, its just PR repeat. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:06, 20 December 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.