Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash


 * 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. It is clear that, although the article may have been more promotional in the past, it is currently supplemented with reliable, third party sources, which is enough to satisfy WP:GNG, regardless of whether the company wrote it or not. Current promotional tones in the article can be fixed; remember that deletion is not cleanup, and that being a scam is not a reason to delete a page. Also,, see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM   (talk to me)  03:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

DealDash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is written by company itself. Most notorious ways of making This Wikipedia Compromised on a highest scale of blatant promotions. Motivations are none other than Paid advertising. Such articles are violating every means possible by misusing GNC and References. Wikipedia is compromised. this article makes zero worth for an Encyclopedia material. No one bother to know about this company. Not even their own industry I doubt. Only few media references are blatantly misused to create this High promotional material. Only interest is to build SEO, Online reputation and Luring customers or employee in the name of Wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Please note that the nominator of this article is under consideration for a topic ban from deletion discussions at WP:AN/I for their behavior here and elsewhere - Wikidemon (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'm Adrian. First off, I would like to declare my WP:COI as an employee of DealDash.

User:Light2021 has not provided any explanation as to why the references provided on the Contested deletion section on the article's Talk page would not qualify as reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If you’re not familiar with these referenced publications, I recommend you study them or consult one of the Finnish Wikipedia moderators: Administrators of Wikimedia projects/Finnish projects

As explained in detail on the talk page, DealDash has been frequently featured by the most prominent independent business papers of their home country. These are not trivial stories, the company has eg. been featured on the cover story of Kauppalehti (est. 1898).

It is my understanding that the argument of “No one bother to know about this company. Not even their industry” is besides the point, as notability is established through reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

However, for the avoidance of doubt, it should be noted that according to Google Keyword Planner tool that estimates Google search volume, 100K to 1M people each month are searching for information about DealDash on Google in the US alone.

This is more than all the other players in the industry and the category keywords combined (Beezid 10K-100K, QuiBids 10K-100K, Online auctions 10K-100K, Penny auctions 1K-10K, Bidding fee auctions 10-100).

Also, according to Adweek DealDash was the most talked about brand on Facebook topping Fortune 500 companies like Coca-Cola and Walmart.

Dd adrian (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Walls of text will not save your article. Please select 3-5 sources you think are best (broad coverage, renowned magazines/sites) and let others review them. Note: interviews, articles based mostly on text provided by company or its representatives, articles based on press releases are all too weak sources to estabilish notability for Wikipedia purposes. Pavlor (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Here comes the response and question of AfD from none other than the Employee of a company. This is highest degree of misuse of Wikiepdia. As citing policies and grave concerns in Wikipedia these days. Only creation for promotions, using media references to build this article. Where no one care to know about this one. Insignificant piece of promotions and nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, who he is - I did read article talk page and author´s talk page(s). Despite of that, I give him chance to prove his point... Pavlor (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * in process of speedy keep, as soon as I can figure out how. Folks, this is a bad nomination, no point wasting editor time on it. If anybody wants to help, please improve the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * you do not need to influence other saying "This is bad", you do not like this. Fine. Keep vote and discussions would be enough. I am also trying to find How to make an efficient Counter actions of biased admins! . Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , which one of the speedy keep criterion apply to this AFD? -- GB fan 16:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, then, SNOW keep, and speedy close if there is any more drama from the nominator per WP:SK, as the subject clearly and undeniably satisfies WP:GNG and WP:CORP, if not by an overwhelming amount, through sustained significant coverage in third party reliable sources. They largely report that the company is scammy if not an outright scam, but achieved wide usage, making it (as DGG says below) a notable scam. The article could use some serious clean-up, but has plenty of useful citations and content and is far from being unsalvageable. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Closure comment - has asked me to reopen so here I am, I disagree with it entirely but hey ho that's life, Anyway I've reopened, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I know you two are so desperately want to close this as keep. As tried earlier as well. You must read the assesmemt below. Such Article has ZERO Place in Encyclopedia. Do not just go by citing. Speedy Keep, Snow Keep and whatever keep. Do not mislead. Provide substance. As given in detail below. ZERO Credibility and 1000% Spam created on wikipedia. Thanks a lot! Light2021 (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - "I know you two are so desperately want to close this as keep." - Well that's bull for a start as I couldn't careless whether this is kept, deleted or sent to the moon!, I speedy closed as a procedural thing and that's all it was, You may believe something is spam but the community may think otherwise, You're welcome!. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * References


 * weak Keep. as an an apparently  notable scam.  There's enough discussion of it to be worth keeping. This really should have been checked before nominating. I don't really see how this article at the time of nomination can be seen as promotional, though it certainly was at an earlier period in its history. But if it had been, Promotionalism isa perfectly good reason for deletion unless it actually gets fixed-any of the restrictions  in WP:NOT is grounds for deletion, including NOT ADVERTISING .  (fwiw, there is no agreed guideline for when something is worth fixing--we have to judge by whether or not it actually does get fixed)   DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete (Update to redirect, pls see below) // Original comment: per WP:PROMO; the article spends too much time discussing the intricate detail of how the bid process work:
 * Bids cost 60¢,[13] [14] unless on "sale" at the time. Bids are sold in lots (Bid Packs) varying in amounts from 100 to 1000 bids. Standard auctions begin with an opening price of $0.00 and every time someone bids the price increases by $0.01 and removes one paid "bid credit" (60¢) from the user's bid balance. The auction clock restarts from a maximum of 10 seconds every time a bid is placed. (Etc. Etc)
 * See WP:MANUAL.
 * The topic of penny auctions appears to be notable (see for example coverage from ConsumerReports.org Bidding on penny auction sites is risky), but the company itself not so much -- I've found nothing on Google books, gnews are also slim picking. Even if the company were notable (which it may be from the consumer protection point of view, given the mention in CR), then the article would need to be rewritten to meet Wikipedia's guidelines, so WP:TNT applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks K.e.coffman. I agree. I've started the process in removing fluff. The issues then seem to get a bit clearer. peterl (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Notes & Assessment Here are few examples of Blatant promotional writing (As written by none other than Company -Violating COI/ Very professional highly misleading article). Media References are used to Write this article. No in-depth coverage is found on media. If we remove everything from this article. Only One Paragraph would be remained. Surely not an Encyclopedia Material.


 * Having more than eight million registered users makes the company one of the largest providers of pay-to-participate auctions in the world. Sources are Unreliable CrunchBase Corporate Profile (This is their first paragraph to begin with)
 * DealDash was the most talked about brand in the world on Facebook's "People Talking About This" metric (No where close to notability standard set by Wikipedia)
 * In August 2013, DealDash also created the site DealDashReviewed.com to house and aggregate reviews and testimonials from their customers (what is this? Feature of a website/ Clear Press)
 * Business Model is written like 1000% promotional intend and nothing else, as written by company itself.
 * Remain With Funding news. Again non-notable thing for an Encyclopedia.


 * In the End What is remained? 2-3 lines for this promotional content?


 * Now let's analyse Few references;
 * http://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/startupin-kova-vuosi-maailman-suurin-alallaan/9EZaNG3J
 * http://www.nextavenue.org/are-penny-auction-sites-seen-tv-real/ (Writer is a Blogger)
 * https://www.truthinadvertising.org/dealdash-com/ (Non-notable media/ Blog/ Wikipedia has provide Zero Credibility for such references)
 * https://pando.com/2013/03/21/this-20-year-olds-three-year-old-startup-did-44m-in-revenue-last-year/ (Again A Blog)
 * Misleading AdWeek Mention (Seriously What is that?) http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/obscure-direct-response-brands-dominate-facebook-chatter-149636
 * http://whois.domaintools.com/dealdashreviewed.com (is this even count?)
 * All such parameters provides enough detail how this company created this non-sense on Wikipedia citing all kind of references to mislead the readers. This is most ridiculous article that should have place in Encyclopedia. ZERO Credibility. Light2021 (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Question If we do keep this, how can we keep it reverting to promotionalism ?   DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The same way Wikipedia stops other abusive editors: by banning them when they become consistent abusers. This is ludicrous. Deleting an article means you don't think the article should exist at all, or that copyright violations require the deletion of the edit history. Neither apply here. The nominator just doesn't like the content of the article, despite the subject being notable. That's not good enough. This discussion should be closed immediately. 108.34.151.139 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone has own idea what is and what is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Notability concerns were raised even on the article talk page and AfD is way to find answer, if subject of this article is notable enough, or not... Pavlor (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As presented in detail on assessment. Credibility is highly questionable. It does not allow wikipedia to become Press distribution channel for mere promotions of companies. such credibility is well written here: Conflict of interest, Notability means impact, No one really cares, Too soon, There is no deadline and many others. this article violates each one of them very evidently. on the other note it adds no value to Encyclopedia. Wikipedia is read and considered as source of Education. What such article provide, it is beyond just my liking or disliking as being accused. Thanks. Please read those articles carefully, and you can decide yourself. What is best. Light2021 (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. As K.e.coffman and other have noted, as an 'apparent scam' or from a consumer protection perspective it's notable. (I note that 'notable' doesn't mean 'helpful' or 'good'.) The links to Consumer Reports, AdWeek and Truth in Advertising are all notable, credible sources. peterl (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I keep going back and forth on this one. Concerns over notability and promotion seem legit, but there are some sources. The Adweek article specifically calls the company 'obscure' and little else, and is churnalism based on a questionable Socialbakers blurb. TiNA and Consumer Reports seem more substantial, though. I don't know enough about Kauppalehti and Talouselämä to say. It's weird to me that this company does all their business in the US, but is mainly discussed in Finnish sources. Most of the interviews with the founder are based as much on his youth and eccentricity as the company itself, and interviews are poor for notability anyway. It's messy, and the walls-of-texts from the COI editor is not a good sign for future improvement. Grayfell (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Update. I've gone ahead and cleaned the article up, adding content and sourcing. On review, the company and its site are not a scam as such, but its entire field of business, penny auction sites, is controversial for luring consumers into making poor choices. As one of the top 3-5 exemplars, it is certainly something a casual Wikipedia reader interested in knowing about this field should know about. It would not have been on my burning list of articles that need creation, but we cover the good and the bad here on Wikipedia, the exciting and the boring. One might compare that with other disreputable fields like payday lending, multilevel marketing, or informercials. Because of the scammy and rather uninteresting nature of the business it has gained relatively weak coverage despite its size ($100M+ revenues, more than many famous Silicon Valley startups) outside of trade publications that specialize in its field or area of the world. But it has earned sustained significant coverage in relatively niche publications like Arctic Startup and Adweek, as well as occasional mentions in broader-based publications like Forbes and Wall Street Journal. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * your desperation has come this far! have you read those Wall street, Adwek aricle? and for your argument sake you can mention all kind of media garbage as references. Even this article is being kept. Your intends are clear! Why on earth you are even here. Light2021 (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your edits removed the intensity of Scam it represent. This is called manipulations of information from what it is covered in media. Scam can not be called as Criticism. You have presented Whole article as Legit Business Model. Comparing with Silicon Valley Startups has no meaning here. References are not from credible media Sources. Light2021 (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * IMHO criticism is correct here, calling something a scam especially when it's disputed probably isn't a good idea, Refs look fine to me. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Light2021's ongoing WP:BATTLE behavior is duly noted. I'm mentioning their AN/I report at the top of this discussion, and will add this to the AN/I report. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep "No one bother to know about this company"(?) is not grounds for deletion. Being a "scam" or a poor value for consumers is not grounds for deletion. There are plenty of non-PR third party sources, many of them critical of the company, that easily satisfy WP:GNG notability. OhNo itsJamie  Talk
 * No doubt you are unable to find sources with non-notability. Your intend are clear as water. This article is filled with garbage and claims with all kind of shit possible on media. Light2021 (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I thin penny auctions are huge gamble and very addicting for some. However, they are by no means a scam. They are a legitimate business model which some people like and some people don't. I disagree with prostitution, but I am not about to call Moonlite BunnyRanch immoral because I disagree with it. I believe the references presented, especially AdWeek meet WP:RS. Of course, here come the WP:Churnalism comments so I would ask how the AdWeek article qualifies as such. As far as keeping promotion off the page, I don't think we can. Unfortunately, too many people come to Wikipedia without knowing the rules and simply try to promote their businesses. If we delete everything that has a chance of being promoted, we would need to eliminate half of Wikipedia. It sucks as there really is no balance, but deleting an article to avoid a risk of future promotional content would bastardize the AfD process. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You have proudly mentioned AdWeek and others. Have you really opened that link and read yourself what is being written there? I highly doubt that! and one not in depth coverage is not suitable for Wikipedia. We are not building a newspaper or directory here! Atleast read what people says. Just come here and make a keep vote. Have you read my assessment. I have presented a detail analysis for this one!Light2021 (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The Manipulators here comes the army of Keep Voters. Who are not here because it meant to be. The biased one who desperately want to block me. and miserably failed to see my contributions. You can keep manipulating the facts And ruin this wikipedia with fifthly articles and SCAMS/SPAM for encyclopedia content. The very funny guy OhNo itsJamie who became somehow Admin but Intellectually incapable to see over 80% vote deletion and call my luck and other even fail to count the %. Go on and please ask someone to Close as Either No-consensus or Keep by vote. You yourself must know Wikipedia is no where meant for such article. On the other hand ignoring who wrote this article and what is their intend. Now he will write "Nothing makes any-sense". Complete waste of time to even banging my head to wall with you people. CNMall41 you can keep anything. Checking last deletions of articles and your judgement. Where you are the only one with Keep vote and 6-8 delete votes. Good Luck with your wiki-judgement skills. Please read those articles I suggested earlier. FYI there is ANI, go there and Vote your block as well to support such people who are ready to ruin this platform for sake of their personal Vendetta. Why are you even wasting your time. You have enough group for Keep vote counts. No Assessment can prove you anything. You can become blind and see nothing! Sadly VOTE like Politics does matter on Wikipedia. Any idiot can write here and few idiots can keep not because it makes sense but you are non-likable to prove few people miserably wrong in their assessment on their face. Such as shame This is the knowledge we are preserving for our generations and people on Wikipedia by manipulations and twisting things. Light2021 (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have intentionally not engaged you this last week due to your hostile behavior towards those who disagree with you. You state that all I do is vote !keep for articles. In actuality, I vote !delete more than 2/3 of the time . I have also agreed with many of your nominations and voted inline with your recommendations. However, due to your comments and suggestions (" FYI there is ANI, go there and Vote your block as well to support such people who are ready to ruin this platform for sake of their personal Vendetta") I believe I will again agree with your suggestion and take it up there. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect -- thinking more on the "consumer protection" angle of this, my input on this would be that it's better to delete the article as a stand-alone page vs keeping it. Consumers can just as easily find the Consumer Report article as this page. But: any potential future COI editors have no access to CR pieces, while they could manipulate this page, once the AfD passes and they eyes are not on it. Since the notability is rather marginal, I'd still advocate deletion and / or redirection. As I noted above, when I encountered the page it was subtly promotional and WP:MANUAL like, and I'm afraid it would be easy for this page to continue its promotional purpose. As an alternative to deletion, the page can be redirected to Bidding fee auction. Anything useful (a couple of sentences) can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * since the keep was "weak", any opinions on a redirect? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane 2007  talk 05:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Refs seem to indicate notability. Doesn't matter whether it's a scam or not. --  Darth Mike (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2016 (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.