Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ODAT


 * 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. While a reasonable argument can be made that some sort of useful page could be created here, consensus seems to hold that this particular page is not it. It appears to be unsalvageable promotional text, and any encyclopedic article created here would be unlikely to use any part of it. ~ mazca  talk 10:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

ODAT

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

This page is a neologism I'm not familiar with, and neither is Google apparently. ODAT = One Deal At a Time. Brief history of which website coined the term, and then the entire article is filled with links to shopping sites. I cleaned up a little, and then realized it doesn't make sense. I would have suggested G-11, but it isn't exactly spam, it's more like a link directory, so I'm bringing it here. Strong Delete SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Serious ODAT Edit required==

I agree with spaceman7. It is a disappointing page that should be deleted. I friend has contacted me from Backcountry.com and asked me for help. I believe that an intern at backcountry.com created the page as an honest effort to conform to Wikipedia guidelines while under the direction of backcountry.com employees who were sincere about making a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Is there anything I can do to help? Should the user who created the page delete it ans ask a wikipedia editor for help? --Petebertine (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Note I removed title formatting for the above post as it tends to cause problems with daily log pages. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest getting the page userfied to your space and bring it up to the required standards before getting the article out to main space with the necessary references etc. I'm not sure that I consider this notable enough since I haven't been able to find major primary references, but if you're able to get good primary refs/sources, I'm open to changing my opinion. Alternately, if you think you can do that on main space before the AfD closes, that's appropriate too. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

-MaritFischer 12:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Spaceman7 and Pete. Spaceman7, for introduction's sake, I am the Communications Manager at Backcountry.com.

I am truly sorry that the page has been deemed disappointing. Pete is correct, the intern that he mentioned, username Cmw0830, spent hours on this entry with an honest desire to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. She was a very diligent student, concerned with the rules, and meticulous in her effort to find sources and create links to outside sites wherever possible, (including to other ODAT sites that are completely unrelated in any way to Backcountry.com). Before she posted the entry, we did run it by Pete for his thoughts. We are all Wikipedia novices, and the rules really do run quite deep. We did not want to post something that would be inappropriate. Unfortunately, we obviously did not meet standards. Please accept our humble apology. The term ODAT is relatively new (2006), and it was, in fact, coined by Dustin Robertson, the CMO of Backcountry.com, at the creation of SteepandCheap.com. It is also a business model for online sales on online stores, the links to which we, perhaps wrongly, thought a good idea to share. Our goal was to be as "encyclopedic" as possible (despite the recency of the coined term and the lack of tomes of external references aside from trade and consumer magazine articles and blog mentions), including the genesis of the acronym and the evolution of the business model. It seems to me, in reading the complaints against the page, that because the acronym is retail related, the information is not acceptable. I welcome any clarification on this point, as obviously, we are not experts here. Out of curiosity, I checked the entry for BOGO, another marketing-related retail acronym. I've always wondered where this term originated. Interesting that when I Googled the term to find the origination, (since that information was not on Wikipedia), I found many more people like me who wanted to know, but no answers. It also seemed that a lot of them turned to Wikipedia for that exact information to no avail. Perhaps there is a non-saleslike way to relay this information about ODAT that would meet the community's standards? I welcome suggestions. I have no emotional attachment to the entry as it appeared originally, or as it is now. If the edited version works for you and other members of the community, I would suggest that we leave it up and leave it at that. I would characterize this edited version as a stub, however. It would be a shame, and ironic, for it to be deleted now because it now is lacking enough information. If that is the consensus, however, we totally understand and we accept the decision. One more thing. I am not sure why Cmw0830's page was deleted. Perhaps because of inactivity? That breaks my heart. She is a great girl, who worked really hard to do what she was advised as the "right thing" in terms of communicating on Wikipedia. She also just graduated from college and has been in Africa for two months on a service project, a great reason for not replying to comments or even visiting her page. I would hate for her to blacklisted for any reason, since she really was only trying to do good work and be of service. The bottom line, Spaceman7, is we are totally willing to work with you or anyone else to make small edits to or change the very basic current (edited) entry for ODAT to allow for it to stay up. If that is not possible, we have no problem taking the post down. I just ask that you please recognize a willingness to learn and a desire to present valid information, and refrain from taking any further action on Wikipedia against Backcountry.com as a whole. Thank you. -MaritFischer 12:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Move and edit I was asked to comment by the nom. This seems to be the abbreviation for two different things, "One Day at a Time", a well-established phrase in use in multiple therapeutic contexts, [www.geocities.com/theodatgroup/index.html ], [www.odatonline.com], and which m should be dealt elsewhere with under the full title. (there is also a show and several songs with that title--the sitcom & one of the songs do have articles: One Day at a Time, One Day at a Time (song). This separate phrase, "One Deal at a Time" may also be important, but  the term is used in   other   business-related contexts also, including some long before  2004     --I don't think they could possible have gotten a valid trademark on either the phrase or the abbreviation & this article is therefore neither correct nor appropriate under this title--it should probably be moved to Backcountry.com and edited accordingly.  The phrase might justify an article, but it would not be this one--it is mentioned as early as 1921 as being a common term.   When moved, the article needs to be de-spammed and some better refs looked for. Another editor decided to truncate the article to 1/0 its length to remove the spam , but I think that's inappropriate awhile it's at AfD, especially since he also removed the refs, inadequate though some of them were. I restored it. DGG (talk)
 * Keep but move per DGG. Perhaps dab? Bearian (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To make it a dab, wouldn't you think a delete and recreate would be better, just to get the history out? Based on the comments so far, my suggestion is to delete this page, create a dab in its place and any well-sourced content on this page be added to Backcountry.com until the topic becomes notable enough for its own page. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Appears to be both a non-notable neologism and spam. Hairhorn (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It's obvious (and the fluff refs confirm it) that ODAT is a neologism and a marketing gimmick. A web site sells stuff, and they do it one deal at a time. Sorry, but that is not notable, and Wikipedia is not for free promotions. There is no analysis comparing ODAT with anything, there is no review, it's just a buzzword. Johnuniq (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2009 (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.