Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TigerDirect.com

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.  Grue  19:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TigerDirect.com

Advert for an electronics dealer. TheMadBaron 20:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete clearly advertising Jkelly 20:19, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. An electronics dealer, but a very major one. Over Ten MILLION Google hits for "TigerDirect". Clearly deserves an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:39, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:NOT. —RaD Man (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep major online retailer, does need to be cleaned up though. -GregAsche (talk) 22:34, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It doesn't have ten million sites mentioning it, and it doesn't even have that many *real* pages mentioning it. It has 247 unique hits. Also, if you do a search *just* inside "tigerdirect.com" you'll find "1,140,000" so-called "hits" there alone. In other words they have an infinate name space (their web server never says "404: file not found", which I even tested with a bogus url). Nothing they do seems special or unique, or having a great impact on anybody. --rob 23:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Although there are 12,000,000 hits when I search, it turns out to only have 243 unique hits. However, Alexa ranking of 221. Keep. Zoe 04:16, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • This makes no sense. Only 200 unique hits among 12.000.000 would mean that at average, every page is duplicated 60.000 times! Google never lists more than 1000 hits total, and it appears that the 200 unique ones have been sorted out from the 1000. - Mike Rosoft 08:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed, no sense whatsoever. *sigh* This is one of the largest and fastest growing direct computer resellers in the United States. The article has been overhauled and appropriately stubbed, but there is much more that could and should be said about their civil suit against Apple Computer. —RaD Man (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Spam. The site seems to be notable, so my vote is keep if somebody rewrites the article. Failing that, delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The article seems to have been rewritten already, so keep. - Mike Rosoft 13:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep big enough company, bit of a ruck with Apple, just the ticket. Alf ^melmac 08:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The Apple dispute makes it notable enough. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 08:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable company. -- DS1953 00:32, 15 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.