Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zazz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zazz

Not Worthy of an entry, as the site is not noteworthy enough in either the limitted context of Australia, or in wider Internet culture. projectphp 08:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: Alexa rank of 184,112 [1]. The article presents no evidence that the company meets the requirements of WP:CORP or WP:WEB. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 09:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: It meets meets the requirements of WP:CORP Feedyourfeet 13:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is the first and only Australian online retailer to use the 'single item per day until sold out' (is there a name for that?) sale method. It is different to many online stores in that it has a "community" feel about it (forums and blogs). It has grown a huge amount and gained a huge cult following (eg. on Whirlpool) in only three and a half months. Many of the items on the site are not even available to buy elsewhere in Australia (not easily). -- Chuq 14:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Simply not worthy of an entry, and the listing page offers absolutely nothing in terms of further detail to justify a listing, either by expanding upon its cultural significance, or by adding anything of note. projectphp 00:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It does meet WP:CORP & i quote "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Feedyourfeet 21:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Evidence needs to be shown in the article that it passes this test. A couple of links to forums doesn't make up a reliable source in my opinion. Kevin 22:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Did you miss the APC Article?, And also MX has mentioned them. Feedyourfeet 04:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
There's a scan of the MX article here Evilgrug 11:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I came up with a quick google.

The 1st one looks passable, the 2nd one looks iffy. Anything else? I agree forum posts aren't reliable sources. As someone who's never heard of Zazz before (or Woot), I'm neutral, though the store concept is definitely interesting. If it doesn't survive the AfD, perhaps a small portion can be added to a section in Woot (retailer), and Zazz can become a redirect to there. TransUtopian 23:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: The article itself needs a cleanup but I do feel it meets WP:CORP and is worthy of an entry. Evilgrug 11:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Despite repeated statements, it appears the company fails WP:CORP for not having the multiple non-trivial citations - the links go to forum posts, the MX article is a reprint of a press release, and the APC article mentions Zazz as one passing mention out of five others, scarcely non-trivial (essentially, one of five places that sell things cheap). And even if I accept one or the other, this fails the requirement of multiple non-trivial published works. Tychocat 16:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rebecca 02:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tychocat--Peta 05:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per my earlier comment - this does not seem to pass WP:CORP for multiple published works. Kevin 09:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Move text to a new section on the Woot (retailer) page. Anyone desiring to read about a one item for one day style of retailing will look at the Woot article first. Joshua 14:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Woot & Zazz are two different companys mate. Feedyourfeet 18:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Why would they look at the Woot article first? I hadn't heard of Woot until I read about them in the Zazz article -- Chuq 23:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete clearly NN Runcorn 19:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - big advert for a small company. BlueValour 22:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments:
    • As it appears most people want this article to be deleted, does anyone know of a name for "one item per day online selling" so that an article can be created describing this method of selling? -- Chuq 23:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It appears Zazz has had a problem with a supplier stating that they were offering Sandisk SD cards, but shipping OEM SD cards. Would inclusion of this fact help change the votes of anyone who thinks this article is an "advert" or "free promotion"? Not that I'm trying to bribe people to change sides, just that I'm not going to bother with it if the article will still be deleted. -- Chuq 23:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Nope. Still say delete. projectphp 01:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above reasons. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 02:13, 20 July 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.