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. Sr 13 00:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealbreaker.com[edit]

The only reason for notability given in the article is that the website has been sued for copyright infringement. I don't think this alone qualifies it as notable under our notability guidelines. greenrd 02:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable blog site, with a really, really bad logo. the_undertow ^talk 02:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable i went through twenty one pages of msn search results from searching for this and got nothing but links to their own site--Cryo921 02:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Its sole claim to fame seems to be being sued. A google search failed to reveal notability. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable as described in the reasons above. --Nehrams2020 08:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I googled and managed to find independent references which suggested worth keeping.Hotmann 10:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if everyone who had been threatened with a lawsuit had their own article, my own personal article would be up to FA by now. Lankiveil 11:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Website is a significant Wall Street information source created by Elizabeth Spiers, who is a notable young media entrepreneur. The Solengo suit is an actual one, not threatened, and the website has received substantial attention because of it.--Samiharris 14:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.