Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheapbooks


 * 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) 00:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheapbooks

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Significance not asserted, written like advertisement (terms like customer-centric?!?). May simply require a rewrite, though. DavidWS (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Question Could this simply require a rewrite to assert significance and to be written in a neutral POV? What do you think? DavidWS (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete it has no reliable sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talk • contribs) 13:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup tremendously — no blatant advertising, but needs some good cleanup/copyediting to get rid of the tone. Articles has independent sources establishing notability. MuZemike  ( talk ) 00:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of notability, fails WP:V none of the given references are reliable sources, most are one line mentions of the website in University magazine articles. Just looks like another text-book buyback service to me. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 15:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- The sources are just passing mentions and do not establish that notability requirements are met. They prove the company exists, but that's all. So what? There's lots of companies in the world. Most aren't notable, like this one. Reyk  YO!  00:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete--some of the sources weren't even passing mentions, really: one was a story about a competitor. After editing out the trivia and spam, what's left is that this company exists, and that a campus newspaper once suggested students might use its website. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - Article is an ad, too short, has unreliable references and is non-notable. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 11:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.