Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EBay Boycott of 2008


 * 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 (speedy; sources introduced). Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! ☺  00:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

EBay Boycott of 2008

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

This is a blip on the history of eBay. no need for its own article. if anything, merge into EBay Zim Zala Bim  talk  01:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This "blip" is rippling throughout the Internet. Millions of people have been burned, angered, and ripped off by the changes in eBay's policies. This boycott is one of the largest to have ever happened anywhere throughout the online world. The sinking of a large ship is a blip on the history of an ocean, but is still a(n) historical event, even though thousands of people were affected, whereas millions were affected by the events leading up to the boycott. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 03:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your original research/prediction is not a valid reason to keep this article. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  04:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes you say that's original research. It's not my own; I can cite where they come from but I can't do it properly... Millions were affected by eBay's changes already. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 04:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge - This could easily fit into the history of eBay. Not important or relevant enough to need its own, separate article. The359 (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete until it can actually become factual. It reads like it was written by a disgruntled eBay seller. "Sellers have left in droves" yet 3 days into this boycott, listings are only down 3%. - &#10032; ALLSTAR &#10032; echo 05:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * New 3rd-party sources and news links have been added to the article. They indicate coverage and therefore notability. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 16:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge I'd agree with the merge comment unless this stuff can be sourced better then it currently is, as it appears to be mostly WP:OR Q  T C 05:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merege/redirect any useful material to the eBay article, until after this incident explodes into something where several screenlengths worth of verifiable, relevant, and neutral information can be written about it. -- saberwyn 06:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional: This should not be interpreted as a keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 16:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Though I agree in principle with Allstarecho, I'll note that 3% of millions of listings is still a substantial number of listings (and individuals). I'm interested to see if this has legs - and, if there are sources that support that, an article may be warranted in the future. At this point, though, the notability (and verifiability!) of the event is unclear. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * New 3rd-party sources and news links have been added to the article. They indicate coverage and therefore notability. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 16:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Were it to be an event, it would be an attestation of a negative.  It would be "this many people did not sell."  Hence, all that can be positively asserted is, "This many people agreed with this protest point."  Without the action, that's nothing.  What would be needed is a response and an accomplishment.  If "eBay, hearing of this, decided to give in," we'd have an article on the boycott or a section in eBay.  Without changing the world in some measure, this is a call to action.  There are, unfortunately, many more calls to action than actions in this world.  Utgard Loki (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * New 3rd-party sources and news links have been added to the article. They indicate coverage and therefore notability. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 16:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete not a notable event on its own.  Gtstricky Talk or C 23:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * New 3rd-party sources and news links have been added to the article. They indicate coverage and therefore notability. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 16:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge Or Keep Still something to be remembered that 100s of thousands or possibly even millions participated in. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 14:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete silly page. NOT#NEWS. Will (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * New 3rd-party sources and news links have been added to the article. They indicate coverage and therefore notability. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 16:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Based on the new additions of third party sources, which indicate coverage, thus notability. The sources are out there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:10, 22 February 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.