Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deal Angel (company)


 * 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. the consensus is reasonably clear after 2 relistings. The only alternative close would have be no consensus, not delete.  DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Deal Angel (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertisement, notability, orphan Notnoteworthy (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  09:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  09:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  09:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

*Keep I'm a new Wikipedian, so I don't expect you to necessarily count my vote. However, I have done my due diligence because I know of this company-- it's well-known in the Bay Area. I found sources at TechCrunch, PCWorld, San Jose Business Journal, San Jose Mercury News--all reliable regional sources. These four articles are enough for notability. Age of entity is not relevant. There's actually a lot to say about this entity. It is a public good. --SFMarkIV (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Morning277 sock — rybec   16:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC) 
 * Delete I found one article about this company at the San Jose Mercury News, a reliable regional source. This one article is not enough for notability. Maybe later; the company is only a year old. --MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  08:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep, while the coverage from the SJBJ appears to be passing mention, and I am unsure as to the reliability of TechCrunch, I do recognize PCWorld as a reliable source as it is a widely distributed professionally published magazine. After reviewing the PCWorld article which is used as a source within the article, along with the San Jose Mercury News article, this makes two significant coverage sources, sufficient IMHO to pass WP:GNG; therefore, I am supporting keeping this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  16:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

 Keep Subject is notable through multiple reliable sources citing it as a well known hotel and travel search engine site. --Bstfstgd1 (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Morning277 sock — rybec   16:31, 5 August 2013 (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.