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 no consensus. –MuZemike 23:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmere.com[edit]

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)).

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has previously been deleted via a WP:SPA ridden AFD. Subsequently it was re-created and speedily deleted as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion." The WP:SPA editor who re-created it took the article to WP:DRV (discussion here) and it was restored to allow AFD discussion (again). As this is was essentially the same article with a few additional sources, I am sending it back to AFD. Toddst1 (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete and salt. Unambiguous advertising: Jasmere’s premise is that it connects upscale, eco-conscious merchandise with upscale, value-conscious shoppers. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is fine (meets WP:N), it isn't all that hard to remove the promo text. It's still spammy but I've cleaned up the worst parts. Hobit (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable due to breadth and depth of sources. Arguably promotional but not "exclusively promotional". There are 27 sources on this page, all from credible 3’rd parties (no blogs, though one source was put up a few minutes ago to a company website to help clean up the article). 13 of the 27 sources are prominent and substantial mentions (several minute long stories) of Jasmere.com in local TV news segments across the country (several of the sources are duplicates and not unique, however). A few of the sources have just a sentence or paragraph about Jasmere.com, but those are in substantial publications such as the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper and Real Simple magazine. Between the breadth of coverage as well as the depth in numerous sources, I feel this page meets the notability guidelines. While one or two sentences could appear promotional, I feel the overall piece is not overtly promotional. And I do believe there are negatives of Jasmere.com, as there is a section dealing with shopping addiction. I believe this page should stay up while editors can spend some more time cleaning up the page as well as adding additional, credible sources. Thanks. Jeff Jbernfeld (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete Spam... not worth the time and effort Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I find myself in agreement with Hobit. While the article is slightly spammy, its nothing that can't be fixed with editing, and the breadth of coverage this site has received allows it to meet notability guidelines. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt spam from a nonnotable website that hasn't been covered in depth by reliable soruces, nor has the site made an impact anywhere in its field. Them From Space 07:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "references"/news sources are likely from company news releases - also promotional in nature, and a degrading component of television news and other media. I also think Groupon should be deleted. If these sites were allowed to promote themselves on Wikipedia, then perhaps they should do so in sections in the One deal a day article.Cleshne (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a correct statement. I searched Business Wire as well as other press release sites and found three total, all done within the first week of when the company started in late 2009. All of the sources in this article are from 2010, including several in May through July. Press releases are typically picked up in the first few days (or perhaps weeks) after distribution. These sources appear to be stories developed by research from the journalists as well as interviews and not from company releases. Jbernfeld (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At this point I don't see how this article can be viewed as overly promotional, nor do I see how the coverage doesn't meet WP:N. It seems to have non-trivial coverage from a rather large number of sources. Finally, that coverage doesn't look like a press release or "faux" coverage. Hobit (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Toddst1 (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[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.