Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restaurant.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. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Restaurant.com
-- - GI e n 06:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC) I was going to speedy this however thought I would get some feedback first (so speedy tagged instead of deleting however creator has removed the tags twice - and no doubt would remove a prod). So here we are. No real notability shown in article, in fact it reads like a commercial. Look forward to others feedback - GI e n 06:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to delete tags. I was still editing the article and they must have gotten deleted when I pasted revised copies from my Word document. It is my first article and I'm still not exactly sure how this all works.

How can I make it sound less like a commercial? I am just explaining how the site and company works.

[user:Jennifercifuentes]


 * Delete - As the nominator indicates, it does appear to be somewhat on the advertising side. I tagged it with a couple of tags asking for notability and sources to be added, but the tags were removed, twice; a Google search came up with this, but I couldn't see any outside sources referring to it. To the creator: what you need to do is review the policies I pointed out on the article talk page, focusing on verifiable, reliable sources, as well as meeting the website and company guidelines. If you do that, I'll gladly reconsider my vote. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The approach to Wiki is not helpful to their cause. Nigel  (Talk) 13:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. While the concept of company-issued coupons as currency is interesting (see Canadian Tire Money), restaurant.com needs a few more reliable sources, such as newspaper and magazine reviews, before it can get validity via WP:WEB.  ColourBurst 15:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, needs reliable sources, does not meet WP:WEB criteria, advertsising. --Ter e nce Ong (T 03:03, 2 September 2006 (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.