Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoppers' hotline

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. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shoppers' hotline

Though not entirely unambiguous, this article feels very much like adverspam. I'm probably too conservative with CSDs and this might be a speedy, but I'm going to (as usual) err on the side of caution and AfD it for failing WP:ORG and lacking verifiable, third-party sources. Tyrenon (talk) 05:59, 4 June 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) 00:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Information Resources Inc., the parent company of this program, is notable, but this Shoppers' Hotline doesn't seem to be. If you do a Google News search for ("Shoppers' Hotline" - cruise) most of the hits are for this company but they are trivial or ads. There are some other Shoppers Hotlines mixed in with the results including a personal shopper service that is only a few years old, this has been around since at least the 1980s. It could be deleted as spam (note the hot external link in the text) but a better solution would be to upmerge to a new article on the parent company since it is significant though not notable. I would be glad to do the move and a couple of introductory sentences and references after the AfD closes if that is the decision. Drawn Some (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability to warrant inclusion per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB (reliable 3rd party source = none). Zzzzz (talk) 23:32, 13 June 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.