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. With an article this poor, the WP:TNT argument is quite persuasive. There is consensus here that if this article is to exist, it needs to be rewritten entirely. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ozon.ru[edit]

Ozon.ru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article fails WP:PROMO. It is also fails WP:COMPANY, with almost all the sources being unacceptable primary source dependant coverage such as press releases. Even if it is considered notable enough, most of the content is fundamentally flawed, failing any semblance of WP:MOS and using WP:PEACOCK. A complete reqrite would be required to bring the article in line with Wikipedia standards. Melmann 17:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Melmann 17:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: You beat me to it (though I was procrastinating quite a lot)! What notable content there is should be moved to Rakuten. I sent Melnakxc a message as I'm sure he/she has somthing to say.  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 18:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep, nomination is without merit. The nom failed miserably in due diligence. One does not have to work hard to find independent sources, sufficient to open ruwiki article. Ozon is Russia's local equivalent of Amazon.com. And the suggestion to merge to rakuten is totally brainless. Press releases , while insufficient for establishing notability, are sources of facts. Wp:promo is matter of cleanup, not deletion. - Altenmann >talk 22:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite The company is quite notable, but it needs to use prose in its history section. I need to take a break from this sort of POV pushing.  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 14:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: improve, could be useful, currently it reads like PR --Devokewater @ 10:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of the references are to primary, otherwise un-reliable sources, or trivial. If this was really the Russian version of Amazon, there would be enough in-depth reliable secondary sources to establish it's notability and pass WP:NCORP, but there doesn't seem to be. Rewriting the article isn't going to change that either. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Blow it up and start over. The text is such a horrid mess of blatant promotion, arbitrary assertions, and grandiose citings without merit that any effort to mend & cure would be fruitless. If the subject is indeed worthy of having an article here, someone better start working up a draft. -The Gnome (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I tried to clean up, however my edits were reversed. this article needs cleaned of all PR, POV etc --Devokewater @ 10:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or draft, this article needs rewritten with reliable sources. --Devokewater @10:21, 27 July 2020 (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.