Talk:FatWallet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Merge
I am not convinced that the term App-O-Rama is independently notable, and I recommend that its information be merged into this article. I would also like to see additional references for "FatWallet", to verify notability, as right now this article smells a lot like self-promotion. --Elonka 18:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Could you please use {{fact}} for specific statements in the article? The last two paragraphs about the lawsuit are in fact referenced. Postdlf 18:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Right now there are no references on the page, aside from the organization's own website. There need to be further references which prove notability, such as newspaper or magazine articles. A link to a legal document is what's called a "primary" source. We need secondary sources. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:RS. --Elonka 18:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's not a "legal document," it's the reported opinion and decision of a court. The court's summary of the conduct and history of the parties in that opinion should be considered a secondary source, because it was derived from primary sources—the documents and arguments submitted by the parties. Furthermore, WP:RS states "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, and may use them only to make purely descriptive claims." This is the only reference to any court-derived source I could find in either policy page. If a court stenographer is a reliable source, a federal judge acting on behalf of a federal court certainly is. Postdlf 18:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation; I agree that a court-provided source is "credible," but the issue here is not so much verifiability, as it is notability. In other words, not all legal cases are necessarily notable, so there needs to be proof in this article that FatWallet is "famous" enough to have an article on Wikipedia. See WP:CORP. What we need is proof of fame, like magazine or newspaper articles about the company or the case. --Elonka 20:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was just speaking to the claimed lack of references; its notability is another issue. I think the court case shows some significance (how many companies do major retailers gang up on in this manner?), which I think I first read about in the BNA IP journal. But I don't really have much of an opinion on its notability. Postdlf 01:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation; I agree that a court-provided source is "credible," but the issue here is not so much verifiability, as it is notability. In other words, not all legal cases are necessarily notable, so there needs to be proof in this article that FatWallet is "famous" enough to have an article on Wikipedia. See WP:CORP. What we need is proof of fame, like magazine or newspaper articles about the company or the case. --Elonka 20:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's not a "legal document," it's the reported opinion and decision of a court. The court's summary of the conduct and history of the parties in that opinion should be considered a secondary source, because it was derived from primary sources—the documents and arguments submitted by the parties. Furthermore, WP:RS states "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, and may use them only to make purely descriptive claims." This is the only reference to any court-derived source I could find in either policy page. If a court stenographer is a reliable source, a federal judge acting on behalf of a federal court certainly is. Postdlf 18:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Right now there are no references on the page, aside from the organization's own website. There need to be further references which prove notability, such as newspaper or magazine articles. A link to a legal document is what's called a "primary" source. We need secondary sources. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:RS. --Elonka 18:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Notability
Are there any references which can be provided, aside from the court case, which prove that this organization is notable? If not, we should probably nominate the article for deletion. --Elonka 19:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- The organization in question is easily more notable on the web than half of the organizations listed on wikipedia. This are scores of google news hits, tens of thousands of google hits. There even google scholar hits -- more than many towns!71.252.94.131 19:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the above comment stating that fatwallet is notable. Fatwallet is one of the more prominent deal websites on the internet. If you search google news you will see that newspapers are citing fatwallet when they mention online deal websites. This should be enough to prevent the article from being deleted. I do however agree with Elonka that the fatwallet article should be better developed with more references. Biomedeng 01:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] History
I disagree with the mention that the website got it's start with fatcash. fatcash came in a year or more after the inception of the site. I won't edit the main page as I have no references, but fatwallet.com was started in response to a policy from the anandtech.com hot deals forum barring the posting of coupon codes on that site. Tim Strong bought a lisence for fusetalk, a forum system based on cold fusion that was the same forum system used by anandtech to ease the transition, and the rest is history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.149.63.106 (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Tim Storm is the owners name. I can confirm that the site started as a Hot Deals/Coupons site. It was indeed a product of the downfall of the Anandtech Hot Deals forum. Cash back came along about 1 year later. I'm not sure what exactly I need to do to "make it official" though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.219.140 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
