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. SpinningSpark 10:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Babyhaven.com[edit]

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

Spammy equivalent of a business profile with mostly mill coverage or fluff mixed with interviews. No real in-depth coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pet WP:NOTSPAM, notability is irrelevant as this is obviously a commissioned work done by an account that thought ACTRIAL was still running so it gamed it's way to autoconfirmed status before creating the advertisement. Likely eligible for G5 if someone wanted to bother filling out the CU paperwork. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All the sources are reliable and the page has been written in accordance with the Wikipedia policies. I think any kind of improvement suggestion if possible will be better. Aapos (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)— Aapos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aapos Show me one source which features in-depth coverage and isn't cruft. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissymad, I don't know if you call this a trivial mention or a detailed coverage. A sensible person wouldn't call this a cruft. Please have a look at this link. https://www.dailybreeze.com/2014/08/15/small-businesses-tap-amazons-shipping-prowess-to-sell-more-earn-more/.

I am putting the whole text here if you don't have time to go over there and read the relevant story.

"A seller’s best bet for competing with Amazon is to offer a unique selection that the site doesn’t have, said Jennifer Becker, co-founder of BabyHaven.com, a baby clothing and accessory company with a warehouse in Santa Fe Springs.

“We try to find the product before Amazon stocks it,” Becker said. “You have to play around what Amazon retail is doing.”

Becker started selling electronics on eBay when she and her twin brother, Jason Becker, were still students at Crescenta Valley High School. While she was at Cal Poly Pomona and he was at Cal State Long Beach, they founded BabyHaven.com, which did $600,000 in revenue its first year.

The company sold $20 million worth of product in 2013 and is on track to increase that figure by 50 to 70 percent this year, Jennifer Becker said.

Last year, BabyHaven opened a brick-and-mortar store in Glendale to keep its vendors happy.

“They say that if somebody wants to test the stroller out they need a physical location,” Jennifer Becker said. “Even though what we’ve found is that they come in and look at it — and then they buy it online.”

Also, please go through this and this Aapos (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a whole lot of primary fluff. And yeah, I'd consider them talking about their own business ventures to be pretty trivial. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References are from reliable sources and the coverage is also not just trivial mention. Just because it has been created by a new user, it wouldn't be fair to delete it. If new users contribute in accordance with the Wikipedia policies, they shouldn't be discouraged to do so. 27.255.30.126 (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only edit made by this IP. —C.Fred (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that this new user is clearly not contributing in terms with our policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Feels like a promotion. Acnetj (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve Oscar for this vote. I see you are more concerned with your random vote counts than the quality of an article. Your edit history reveals that. If you had bothered to read what the editors say, you wouldn't have posted this. Go through this link and have look at what they say. Aapos (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aapos Something something glass houses. You really shouldn't be attacking people as it violates WP:CIVIL but it's also pretty ironic given your account is brand new and has only edited to promote this subject. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was and am commenting as a juror by looking at the article itself and judging what has been presented. Nothing more or less.Acnetj (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as promotional, and the plea above for keeping are evidence of the coi and of the promotional intent. Probably is a G5, but a delete here will have more effectiveness. ``

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.