Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skoosh (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Skoosh
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article does not demonstrate notability and I have not been able to find anything to establish notability. There are 7 sources on the article. 1. Is significant coverage but it is just about a complaint filed by Skoosh. 2. The article is about an investigation initiated by a complaint by Skoosh. 3. The article doesn't mention Skoosh, just discusses the previous investigation. 4. The article mentions Skoosh once, it is just that a complaint was made. 5. Once again, one mention but only that Skoosh made a complaint. 6. A class action complaint, Skoosh is not a defendant, didn't read the whole thing, but probably related to the complaint. 7. What I can see without registering is again about the complaint made by Skoosh but isn't about the company. I do not see anything that says the company is notable. GB fan 12:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Looks NN to me. Looks like a minor player trying to muscle in on the larger ones by making claim against larger operators.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete -- The company are notable if you follow the hotel industry in any way. They are small and don't appear to make any pretensions otherwise but the complaint they made will, if upheld, be a landmark case. The Office of Fair Trading would not be making an investigation into the claims made by the company if they weren't serious - they're a public body. As the only company to make a complaint and publicly discuss the issue, Skoosh seem certainly worthy of notability. Feel free to suggest re-wording of page instead if it can be done better. Waldinho (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 22:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 11:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:WEB --Ushau97 (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2013 (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.