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 Keep, but continue to improve. (non-admin closure). Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 00:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Build.com[edit]

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above "Delete" !vote is redundant since it is from the AFD nominator. Edison (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What else can I do to keep this article from being deleted? I'm totally open to suggestions. I've tried to comply with the guidelines, but if there's something I'm overlooking, please let me know. Thank you. -- SeanMurphy27 —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Find as much third party non-nominal press as possible (I worry about how objective internetretailer.com is - it looks like it might be a PR site). Read WP:WEB if you haven't already. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepReferences show a number of articles about the company with significant coverage, appearing to satisfy notability. Are the refs not independent, or are the sources nonreliable? Edison (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple more facts about us, including that we're a subsidiary of a company that deals with builders and contractors on a global scale. What else do you suggest I add?Seanmurphy27 (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)SeanMurphy27[reply]
I've also just added a link to two more references, including a New York Times article. Would you recommend that I omit a few of the references to Internet Retailer articles? Seanmurphy27 (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC) SeanMurphy27[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business- related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 00:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 00:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Magog: Thank you for your input. I've tracked down a couple of additional third-party references (including the NY Times article). And yes, I can see how Internet Retailer might seem like a PR site. It prints a monthly hard copy magazine and it's actually considered the definitive source for e-retailers (which is what Build.com is). Once again, thanks for your suggestions. I'm hoping to hear some more feedback on how this article can stay alive. Seanmurphy27 (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC) SeanMurphy27[reply]
Keep The article has been improved, and I encourage the author to continue the process. Cullen328 (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to track down and add another article that mentioned Build.com, this time from The Wall Street Journal Seanmurphy27 (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC) SeanMurphy27[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 07:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added another reference about Build.com's relationship to Wolseley (builders' merchant). Seanmurphy27 (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC) SeanMurphy27[reply]

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.