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 keep, with kudos to Edison for finding solid sources. Hopefully, someone will use them to reference and improve the article.--Kubigula (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etsy[edit]

Does not establish notability of website and seems to be mostly promotional and collection of external links. Delete TheRingess (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. After quite a bit of searching, I cannot find any independent secondary coverage. spryde | talk 14:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kubigula (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent reilable sources found either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, unless someone can find sources I can't... There's nothing out there to reference for this article. Furthermore, seems spammy, possible speedy deletable as db-spam... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep(edited) Has anyone heard of Google News? It is a great place to check whether something has multiple coverage in reliable sources, as Etsy does [1]. See Cox News service, a wire service: [2]. See CNET Asia: [3]. See the Wall Street Journal (subscription, substantial coverage): [4]. There are many more behind paywalls per the Google News search. Etsy has a great many such reliable sources with substantial coverage, satisfying notability. See coverage in the New York Times, for instance [5] [6] , along with several articles in Business Week (example [7]) and numerous regional newspapers. The paragraph in Wired [8] would seem to be substantial coverage in a reliable source as well. See the International Herald Tribune [9]. There are many more sources which can be used to improve the article and which more than satisfy the notability requirement. Edison (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And someone else DOES... Well done Edison... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An episode of Inside the Net with Leo Laporte and Amber MacArthur featured the site also. Definitely one of the more notable crafting sites out there. Nate · (chatter) 08:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though there are reliable secondary sources, I'm saying delete because certain statements read like an ad ('...you must pounce quick, before the item you want is gone!'? 'These tools are unique and new to online shopping.'?). Littleteddy (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising language can be fixed by editing, a total lack of reliable sources (after searches) cannot. Since there are sources there's nothing stopping anyone from running a knife through the offending material this very minute. Unless the article is so offensive it needs bleaching and rewriting from scratch deletion should be a final option. Someone another (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:N Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this source alone (found by Edison) is an excellent future cite, passes WP:N. Someone another (talk) 14:57, 14 December 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.