Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DirectSeats.com


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

DirectSeats.com

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable company Wuh  Wuz  Dat  18:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Highly WP:PROMO tone of the original article suggests WP:Conflict of interest. Borkificator (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  —Borkificator (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing special about this ticket broker. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of third-party coverage in notable publications or any other markers of notability. Herostratus (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete A7 doesn't even claim to be important and has no secondary sources to back it up if it did. Is probably G11 and COI as well.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the relevant category and more relevant citations and content. DirectSeats.com is in line with other pages in its category from what I can determine.Stevenp69 (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Those citations don't help, in fact most of them don't even mention this subject. What you need to find are good quality third party sources which talk about this particular company and why it is notable, which at the moment is completely absent. The standard you are looking to demonstrate is WP:COMPANY. Note also that other similar articles existing does not mean this one should be kept, each article is judged on its own merits. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Hardly been going long enough to achieve notability. (Not unless they were offering genuine table reservations for the Restaurant at the End of the Universe - and could prove it...) Current references tell us about other entities, not this one. They are really links not references. Peridon (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2011 (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.