Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roomster


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Roomster

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is evidence (from the BBB and elsewhere online) that this service is a scam. It seems more mild attempts to edit rather than delete have all been reverted, possibly by interested parties. The notability of this website is also questionable. MukashiEcho (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't see enough coverage to meet GNG —Мандичка YO 😜 18:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of notability. Also, while not relevant to the deletion discussion, there is a heavy amount of COI editing. Safiel (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm finding some mention of the app here and there, typically brief, trivial mentions in places that just list roommate services like this article. I think that this article is a pretty good example of the lengthiest stuff out there, which really isn't much. I'll search some more, but offhand there really isn't a lot out there. That the website seems to have sent people over to make the article as positive as possible really doesn't help matters much either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comment above. I searched a little more but found absolutely nothing to suggest that this company/app would pass notability guidelines. It gets an occasional mention here and there, but it's almost always briefly done. The most substantial mentions are ones alone these lines where the app gets a paragraph mention... only the paragraph is pretty obviously lifted from a press release. This just doesn't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd also recommend a block for the obvious COI SPA (Rzaks) currently editing the article. I've got a sneaking suspicion that they might be a WP:MEATPUPPET of Nilborno, who was blocked for COI editing. Their edit comments are pretty promotional in tone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2015 (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.