Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GiftCards.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 keep. Sandstein 08:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GiftCards.com

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

I proposed WP:AfD, the article/company seems non-notable has WP:COI editing (by possibly at least two/only (that is not those reverting or putting banners in) "contributors", that do not edit ([m]any) other pages), copyvio. Article/company made too look important, by linking to news articles (the sources are real, notable (usually WP:RS), news sources, still newspapers link in this banner in this page brings this result: "No results found for "GiftCards.com" site:news.google.com/newspapers."), discussion general issues (gift cards [companies]), this one not the main/only one. Didn't look at all refs, another guy did, said would support AfD. See talk page for more. Not sure if AfD or even just WP:PROD is appropriate, as I proposed AfD, I'm ok, with a speedier process if others deem appropriate and it is allowed to change (w/my permission).

Delete

Clear Might not be the right place for this (please if anyone knows where to bring up, do, possibly by copying/moving my text here): Separately (I do not know the process) I propose banning the COI editors if not already done (and their IP addresses, or whatever is done), as a violation of policy (not declaring COI, and they seem not be independent editors, that should have possibly known better than to edit in this way). comp.arch (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - The references either appear to be invalid, pointing to affiliated sites, or reprints(?) of press releases. I don't see evidence of notability. The purpose of the current article appears to be promotion of the company. Rwessel (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cleaar PR for a not yet notable company. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not remove the broken links and copyrighted information, but keep the page? I apologize and was simply trying to bring the page current. What can be done to keep the page?

Here are newspaper sources to show GiftCards.com is notable:

Here are sources to show that the gift card industry is notable:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.177.2 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 August 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the copyright issues and providing good references is an excellent idea. If the article is improved sufficiently, this AfD will become moot. Rwessel (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rwessel Is this now moot? I see it was relisted but not sure what else can be done other than stubifying it. There are so many broken comments here it is hard to keep track of everything. --TTTommy111 (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a jumbled mess, I've added my comment at the bottom. Rwessel (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content without copyright issues and good references have been provided on the talk page.Justinfritz (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to the article in the BBC [1], it is the largest gift card retailer in the world. That would be notable. There are additional references that support its notability like [2], [3], and [4]. The content that is promotional can be removed. In fact, I will do that now. But the company itself is not new and clearly meets WP:GNG. --TTTommy111 (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are some SPA issues which tells me that some of the content was probably created without fully understanding how to write in an encyclopedia tone.--TTTommy111 (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I stripped it to bare bones and rewrote what was left. This should take care of the promotional tone and copyvio issues. For anyone new who is trying to edit the article, especially those with a COI, I strongly encourage that you become more than familiar with Wikipedia guidelines prior to.--TTTommy111 (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more 3rd party sources that point to GiftCards.com's notability:
Selling 6 million gift cards: http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/blog/morning-edition/2015/02/giftcards-com-sells-6-millionth-gift-card.html

Entrepreneur magazine, You Gift We Gift: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/235585

Inc. 5000, mentioned as prominent brand along side Yelp & Facebook: http://www.cnbc.com/id/48782069

Pittsburgh Business Ethics Awards honors GiftCards.com: http://triblive.com/business/headlines/7850044-74/company-ethics-gift

Home to Shelly Hunter (aka GiftCard Girlffriend) who keeps a Chapter 11 Watchlist for company's whose gift cards are about to go bankrupt: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/05/31/gift-card-retailer-bankruptcies-dots-family-christian-stores/28155839/

Keep per the list of all references above. The article is short and, perhaps, not ideal, but it needs to be revamped, not deleted. There are plenty of reliable, independent, and verifiable sources out there for this one. Gargleafg (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waffle While the copyright issues appear to be resolved, I'm not fully convinced that the sources establish notability. Of the three in the article, only the BBC one comes close (the others are a company web site and some sort of directory entry), and that does a better job of establishing the notability of Mr. Wolfe than the company. Of the ones listed above by 71.112.177.2, only the TribLive, Fortune and Post-Gazette ones are plausibly valid (the others just include GiftCards.com in a list). Of those, the Fortune one appears also appears to be more of a Wolfe hagiography (like the BBC reference), and the other two feel more like reprinted or thinly reworked company press releases or company histories than "real" journalism, but that's clearly a judgement call (although in the case of the Post-Gazette a local paper writing a puff piece about a local company is hardly uncommon). Rwessel (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I didn't initiate the AfD only because [of copyvio, but because of] non-notabililty. Now, I see the BBC article (not sure it changes much, but will accept either decision). At least I learned (English is not my native language) a new word "hagiography": "is a biography of a saint or an ecclesiastical leader." comp.arch (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that *is* the original meaning. In modern usage (and in this case), it's usually sense 4 of wikt:hagiography (as described in the third paragraph of hagiography), less commonly sense 3, and the (actual) religious usage is fairly rare. Rwessel (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If this is here because of a copyright violation, I do not see a reason to continue the debate as it was taken to a stub. If it is here because of notability, not sure why as there are plenty of references (see Google news – [5]), including this on Bloomberg TV, plus this, this, this, this and this. These are surely multiple sources, seeming reliable and independent of the subject, thus making the subject compliant with WP:GNG (IMHO). Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 17:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a decent amount of sources here. Largest gift card retailer probably counts for something. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am going in to remove the old references and include the more reliable ones, at least the ones I feel are more reliable. If this is kept, I would recommend anyone contributing to it be non-promotional and include reliable sources to back up what they introduce into the page. --TTTommy111 (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2015 (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.