Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmere.com

Jasmere.com

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of these sources are blogs - some are from people at news outlets, but there is no indication that they are subject to the same editorial scrutiny that news stories are subject to - therefore fail WP:Reliable. {{findsources}} returns only 2 results, both press releases. As a result I can only conclude that this article written by a WP:COI WP:SPA is about a company that fails WP:Corp. Toddst1 (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as db-promo. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first reference is a news report from a television station. The second is from the Washington Business Journal's site, and bears the byline of a journalist. The third is from the site of Self (magazine). These are not written by independent bloggers, but are the responsibility of the media involved. As such, they are reliable. I added the "Terms Of Use" page from Jasmere.com only to confirm the company's legal name and location. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that even Google doesn't consider those media blog outlets "news". See {{findsources}} on talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Eastmain, the first reference is a news report from a DC area CBS affiliate news station. The second and third references help establish the notability of this article. It should be improved but not deleted. Daa89563 (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I live near DC, and I heard about this site because of the news channel 9 story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phacts (talk • contribs) 13:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Keep. I live in Pittsburgh, PA. I heard about this site from a friend in Denver, who saw it on a KUSA news feature. I have since used it for a couple of purchases and the site is exactly as described. Deal of the day with more buyers = greater discount. Article not available on KUSA anymore but can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6I64L88juY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myboysmommy (talk • contribs) 20:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The first source is the site itself; the second, fourth and fifth sources are blog-type postings with a promotional tone; the third source is a very brief mention in Washington Business Journal (just a paragraph). To my mind that does not meet WP:RS. --bonadea contributions talk 21:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I can not find any more Reputable and Reliable sources that meet WP:RP than the Washington Business Journal coverage, and while the WBJ may be reputable the size of the coverage barely meets wiki standards. In all, I don't see enough coverage (even with a few seconds of local TV news coverage) to warrant a stay of execution on this article --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 04:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]