Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deal of the day services


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

List of deal of the day services

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Indiscriminate list article lacking sources that establish notability per WP:LISTN. The article is little more than a spam magnet. - MrX 13:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - MrX 13:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - MrX 13:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  13:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Deal of the day is apparently a notable topic, so this would pass LISTN even if it didn't pass WP:LISTPURP as an index of articles, and WP:CLN as a list complementary to Category:Deal of the day services. The "spam magnet" argument is nothing but WP:SUSCEPTIBLE and so can be dismissed as irrelevant even if the list weren't presently restricted to blue links. So is there an argument for not classifying these notable sites by this notable characteristics, such that we would also want to delete the category? Otherwise, I see no basis for deletion. Merging to the parent article would certainly seem feasible given how short this list is (presuming there aren't a lot of missing valid entries), but that's obviously not deletion and should have been dealt with outside of AFD. postdlf (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the subject – deal of the day websites – is most certainly notable. The list is easy to maintain, and only notable entries are presented, as I don't see any "spam" present.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 19:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Poorly sourced, poorly developed, but an appropriate list on a notable subject (agree with /) --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:14, 27 November 2014 (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.