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.
Nothing actually substantiating both a significantly substantial and non-PR article, the listed sources are either PR or PR-motivated or simply trivial and unconvincing overall, and my own searches of looking at pages and pages at News is showing this; the history itself also shows the PR advertising motivations, especially see the first 2 accounts at the start who were clearly either employees or paid agents for this company. Therefore there's no compromising when it becomes to such blatancy. SwisterTwistertalk 23:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How does the article have a promotional tone? I'm not seeing any promotionalism at all in it. North America1000 01:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG as a major "penny auction" site that has been the subject of news coverage, positive and (mostly) negative. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Tone of the piece is an editing matter, not a notability matter. Carrite (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Not a notability matter" but that's exactly why the article only contains company webpages and the other half being trivial PR and mentions; regardless of names, this is still an advertisement and we never compromise with that. SwisterTwistertalk 21:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see how its PR, it is kinda negative towards the company i.e saying that its claims on prices of items were inaccurate and the article is critical of the websites currency. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of that establishes actual notability, since not only half of the listed sources literally the company website, the few supposedly independent sources listed are then in fact only trivial PR or mentions, none of that is substance. Also, as for the "I can't see how its PR", the lead paragraph and "auctions" are the largest parts of this article, outweighing everything else; with that, the lawsuit section is literally only 2 paragraphs with trivial information. Therefore there's no notability (this is emphasized by my nomination above).
In the time this article has existed, no one has ever to actually put meaningful contents and sources, and that's considering the history literally consisted of apparent company employees. SwisterTwistertalk 21:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per G11Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How does the article consist of unambiguous advertising or promotion as per WP:G11? I'm not seeing any promotionalism at all in it. Rather, the article provides a neutrally-worded overview about the company. North America1000 01:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article may have intended to be, promotional, but its current state is not anything of the sort--it is perhaps closer to an attack page. There are however very few usable references--the only two are WSJ and ABC, and they discuss this as only one among many similar sites. There's no reason to think it's notable. The other references are company PR, blogs, and other unreliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources, one of the core bases of topic notability. In addition to those in the article and discussed above, see the following examples below. Also, the article does not have a promotional tone, but concerns about such matters can be addressed by copy editing, rather than blanket deletion. North America1000 01:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References
"An Empirical Analysis of Quibids' Penny Auctions. Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce. Designing Trading Strategies and Mechanisms for Electronic Markets. Springer. pp. 56– . (subscription required)(Extensive study, Gbooks preview goes to page 64, but the content is cut off mid-sentence, so more is there)
Analysis - The sources above are not convincing, especially the ChristianScienceMonitor, as not only is it starting with pricing and costs, but it continues and even contains the blatant I use this website and it cost me $60 for a starters package, all of the packages will cost .60 standard price....after that, I purchased....where I bid on....where it cost me $7.80 where I then got...the buy it now was $23.20 and $1.99 shipping....the real winner here is Quibids, they are able to sell a lot at normal retail price online....win for 0.01.... The more the users use QuiBids, the better it gets for them....My recommendation for shop and gambling is QuiBids! It would not even matter if it was necessary or relevant to the website, because it only cares to go to the company's pricing and costs of their website and services hence advertising. A publication like this and such a blatant "advertising pitch" like this cannot be taken seriously, regardless of publication name, because the contents themselves are only focusing with what the company's own words are and in this case, it's service costs and features, not actual substance and independent coverage.
Now the second news website then also says the same sales-pitch items which is a confirmation sign that the company's own costs and services are involved, charges $0.60 for each bid—and I'm not talking winning bids—I'm talking every bid....You may get some good deals.... Now what is QuiBids exactly? You get this [cost] and [this cost]....Now let's look at their website....If you're new to QuiBids, the [costs are]...." Even though this contains a few slices of "unpleasant things about them", it still noticeably focuses with flashy costs and features, so it's imaginable to state the company likely put that themselves in attempts to make it a "non-advert or uninvolved column". Even then, it's all simply a guide given how it, not only shows you how everything works, it coaches you about everything else as it is. When there's such questionability like this, there's nothing to suggest better. Inviting commenters Dcheagle and DGG about these updates.
What about all of the other sources? North America1000 01:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, the other sources are still only about what the commenters noted above, how it's only attempts at negative and unpleaant coverage, but this is by far not outweighed by the sheer fact there's still an enormous amount of solely costs and pricing information, even websites such as Amazon and EBay would never contain such blatancy, and the difference is that it's clear this specific is not an established company therefore they enlarge their own advertising efforts. Once we become a compromising and advertising-negotiating encyclopedia, we're damned, and we can only save ourselves by removing such advertisements (including for policies WP:SPAM and WP:NOT which are not co-negotiable with WP:GNG or BASIC at all). SwisterTwistertalk 01:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The source examples I provided are convincing because they demonstrate that this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. More sources in addition to these are available. My keep !vote stands. North America1000 01:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ref one is an article in a symposium published by Springer: Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce. Designing Trading Strategies and Mechanisms for Electronic Markets Volume 187 of the series Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing . The pagination is 56-69. According to Google Scholar, it has never been cited. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- insufficient claim of notability or significance per available sources. Sources presented at this AfD do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have whole articles on the subject. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Entire articles about topics are certainly typically pertainable toward meeting CORPDEPTH, as are entire book chapters. North America1000 03:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep per sources meeting WP:N. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2016 (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.