Talk:One deal a day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Spam?

It seems useful, interesting, and not in breach of anti-spam guidelines to list the major retailers that use a certain business model. Do others disagree? Stevage 06:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• See WP:EL and WP:NOT -- specifically, Wikipedia is not a directory, nor an external link repository. I think the best course of action here would be to include wikilinks to the retailers here who have Wikipedia articles. --Czj 06:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Links normally to be avoided" at WP:EL states

"Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources."

Also see WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. John Reaves (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My reading of that rule has always been that we don't provide pages of links to "random" sites: for a page about cameras, we don't create a huge list of links to sites that sell cameras. Or sites that sell photography courses or whatever. This is a little different: the list is actually *about* the retailers themselves. It wouldn't actually matter much if their websites weren't linked, but it would seem petty not to. What we're saying is bitsdujour is a retailer that uses the model we're describing. We're not saying, "Go to bitsdujour.com to learn more about...". See thi difference?

• As to "includ[ing] wikilinks to the retailers here who have Wikipedia articles", it's a bit of a catch-22. Most of those retailers should probably have articles about them, but I don't want to get into that. We could make them redlinks if you prefer. Stevage 06:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite the wording, it's still an excessive list that advertises for the sites. Do any of the sites have Wikipedia articles? John Reaves (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning. Are you implying that it has been decided that none of those sites *should* have articles? There are plenty of article-worthy entities in the world that don't have articles - I wouldn't go using the absence of an article as evidence for anything. As for the list itself, see Woot (retailer) - that's where the list came from. I hardly see how listing retailers that use a certain business model is advertising. How can Wikipedia have good coverage of electronic commerce if we can't even refer to actual individual retailers by name? Stevage 09:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see the list maintained here as it is obviously not spam. But to satisfy the wikitcally correct amongst us you might decide to link to an external page that reviews/ranks/discusses these site - Google suggests http://www.squidoo.com/onedealaday/. Pcb21 Pete 11:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I was saying we should just link to one (or two) of the cites, being your to cite them as examples. I was just asking if any of the sites had Wikipedia articles, you're looking too much into this. John Reaves (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)