- 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 merge to Prodege. MBisanz talk 18:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Swagbucks
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Swagbucks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
See WP:ADMASQ. Also, insufficient in-depth coverage. Sources present mostly company related routine information and interviews with company execs. Fails CORDPETH, INHERITORG, and ORGIND. The CNET article is about making money from celebrities' websites and mentions the topic only in passing. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment from nom. I previously prodded this page [1]. It was de-prodded with the rationale "...Send to AfD" [2]. Hence, I have done so. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment There are articles about this in USNews, CNET and Business Insider. These seem like advertorials though and the BI source discloses this. Obviously quid-pro-quo coverage is rife in business but this seems particularly egregious. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 06:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Prodege or Keep While I think the subject meets GNG/NCORP (Above sources and NY Times DailyBreeze MarketWatch 映画.com 6ABC, but could be ad), the article contents are completely about the parent company, so a merger to there seems appropriate to avoid duplication. But if someone wants to do a WP:HEY and improve the article then I'm happy to give this a keep. Jumpytoo Talk 07:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The sources posted above are about the rewards program and not the company itself. And as stated above these are advertorials and they are not too well disguised as articles. They also are testimonial type advertising. There is nothing wrong with that except these are not useful as determinants for notability on Wikipedia. And Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Merge is possible. And, there is not much about Swagbucks in the article as far as I can tell. I think the first reference should not be merged. So for now I agree with Merge but not Keep unless someone can make a good argument against merging. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 08:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 merge to Prodege. MBisanz talk 18:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Swagbucks
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Swagbucks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
See WP:ADMASQ. Also, insufficient in-depth coverage. Sources present mostly company related routine information and interviews with company execs. Fails CORDPETH, INHERITORG, and ORGIND. The CNET article is about making money from celebrities' websites and mentions the topic only in passing. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment from nom. I previously prodded this page [1]. It was de-prodded with the rationale "...Send to AfD" [2]. Hence, I have done so. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment There are articles about this in USNews, CNET and Business Insider. These seem like advertorials though and the BI source discloses this. Obviously quid-pro-quo coverage is rife in business but this seems particularly egregious. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 06:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Prodege or Keep While I think the subject meets GNG/NCORP (Above sources and NY Times DailyBreeze MarketWatch 映画.com 6ABC, but could be ad), the article contents are completely about the parent company, so a merger to there seems appropriate to avoid duplication. But if someone wants to do a WP:HEY and improve the article then I'm happy to give this a keep. Jumpytoo Talk 07:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The sources posted above are about the rewards program and not the company itself. And as stated above these are advertorials and they are not too well disguised as articles. They also are testimonial type advertising. There is nothing wrong with that except these are not useful as determinants for notability on Wikipedia. And Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Merge is possible. And, there is not much about Swagbucks in the article as far as I can tell. I think the first reference should not be merged. So for now I agree with Merge but not Keep unless someone can make a good argument against merging. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 08:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- 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.