Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RedBalloon

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. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 00:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RedBalloon

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

Alleged G11 article, however its been here for a while and there are enough references that this could be salvaged...maybe. Before we get there the community will have its say here. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 14:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 14:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 14:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I actually looked at some of these references a month ago. There are many that support notability including all of these on Google News [1]. The G11 nomination looks to be from an SPA IP editor, likely someone who has an issue with the company from a bad experience. Wikipedia is not a place to air their grievances. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a very well known online retailer that has received considerable coverage in the mainstream press.-Lester 05:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of valid refs. While it is somewhat spammy, I wouldn't say "exclusively", per WP:G11. Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though reluctantly, and I would've also closed this as such as I'll have it open in case any other comments are available as although the current sourcing and coverage is not as solid as it could be, I would perhaps say save for now and nominate again later if needed especially for further attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 16 December 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.