User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2011/November
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Arbcom vs Unblock Requests Mailing List – what to do?
Hello! Back in January 2011 you noted at Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block#Arbcom vs Unblock Requests Mailing List.... that the Wikipedia:Appealing a block page needs to mention the unblock mailing list. I agree with you – but it seems the issue went away with no action taken. I'm prepared to start a new thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). What are your thoughts? Regards, HeyMid (contribs) 11:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Also, it may be hard to notice on a short look, but after reading through the entire page, I've noticed that the "Requesting to be unblocked" section presently states that "[..]you can also contact the blocking administrator (or the unblock request mailing list) via email to request unblocking." Perhaps we just need to move (or copy) that part over to the "Routes to an unblock" section? HeyMid (contribs) 21:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've not forgotten this, but I've been on holiday, and now back at work - but I'm off work for a couple of days in the next week, so I'll try to get time to deal with this then! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have now (belatedly) responded to this on they editor's talk page PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Artemus James page
Hello Phantom Steve! You helped me in creating a music page last year (Cain & Annabelle) and I have created a related page, so that Cain & Annabelle is not an orphan page. It is also related to Cain & Annabelle. The Artemus James page was quickly added for speedy deletion and I'd like a little help, if you can, with preventing that. I would also like to learn how to add a photo to the pages. Thanks Steve! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivy.on.oak (talk • contribs) 14:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've not forgotten this, but I've been on holiday, and now back at work - but I'm off work for a couple of days in the next week, so I'll try to get time to deal with this then! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have now (belatedly) responded to this on they editor's talk page PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Chester Romans page
Hi Phantomsteve,
I'm new to creating articles and found a gap for one I wanted to create on the Chester Romans American football team in the UK. After having a look at other pages on British American football teams, I set it up along the same lines with a view to add more information later. However, when I returned to do so I found it had been deleted.
I also found a discussion from a previous edition of the page which was deleted along the lines of insignificance.
I'm a little confused as to why the Romans page isn't allowed to exist while pages for other teams who compete at the same level are considered fine, including some which contained less information than I included in the original draft.
Is there any way that I can recreate the Romans page to the satisfaction of the deletions team?
Thanks,
Antjwhite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antjwhite (talk • contribs) 12:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've not forgotten this, but I've been on holiday, and now back at work - but I'm off work for a couple of days in the next week, so I'll try to get time to deal with this then! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have now (belatedly) responded to this on they editor's talk page PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 October 2011
- Opinion essay: The monster under the rug
- Recent research: WikiSym; predicting editor survival; drug information found lacking; RfAs and trust; Wikipedia's search engine ranking justified
- News and notes: German Wikipedia continues image filter protest
- Discussion report: Proposal to return this section from hiatus is successful
- WikiProject report: 'In touch' with WikiProject Rugby union
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Abortion case stalls, request for clarification on Δ, discretionary sanctions streamlined
- Technology report: Wikipedia Zero announced; New Orleans successfully hacked
The Signpost: 7 November2011
- Special report: A post-mortem on the Indian Education Program pilot
- Discussion report: Special report on the ArbCom Elections steering RfC
- WikiProject report: Booting up with WikiProject Computer Science
- Featured content: Slow week for Featured content
- Arbitration report: Δ saga returns to arbitration, while the Abortion case stalls for another week
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I blocked this account for spamming. It has all of the usual indications of these "watch sports events for free over the Internet" spam accounts. I know that you left a friendly note to them about it, but my experience with them is they will ignore it and continue to spam their talk page even after being blocked, which is why I locked their talk page, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds OK to me! I was considering blocking, but as the user name was not "spam" itself, I thought leaving the message would be sufficient! That's one less account for me to keep an eye on! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Mingo Fishtrap
The proposed deletion of Mingo Fishtrap has been contested. You may like to take it to Articles for deletion instead. 79.123.76.35 (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Dlpham
You are not allowed to edit! Undo everything you did to my user page! >:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlpham (talk • contribs) 19:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Responded on user's talk page -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 21:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Antjwhite
Hi Phantomsteve. Thanks for getting back to me re Chester Romans, I'll be back in touch when I've got some independent sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antjwhite (talk • contribs) 10:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 November 2011
- News and notes: ArbCom nominations open, participation grants finalized, survey results on perceptions on Wikipedia released
- WikiProject report: Having a Conference with WikiProject India
- Arbitration report: Abortion and Betacommand 3 in evidence phase, three case requests outstanding
The Signpost: 21 November 2011
- Discussion report: Much ado about censorship
- WikiProject report: Working on a term paper with WikiProject Academic Journals
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: End in sight for Abortion case, nominations in 2011 elections
- Technology report: Mumbai and Brighton hacked; horizontal lists have got class
Thanks much
As I understand it from the post on my talk page, your plan is to track my activity on Wikipedia and create obstacles to me working on articles in my field of interest, which would inevitably rely to some extent on coverage in specialist and trade journals. So be it. If I continue to work on these articles, I will be armed with sources already cleared at the appropriate Notice Boards. Three things you should consider.
- You are just wrong about applicable policy here. Look up the meaning of "significant coverage." It means that the topic of the Wikipedia article is the main subject of the source cited. It has nothing to do with notability. You need to learn that.
- You are absolutely wrong that WP:RS excludes any article based on a press release (let alone thought to be based on a press release). The sources cited in the DeusM article were all completely different - leading to the alternative postulates of an ur-press release, containing so much information that three distinct articles could be extracted from it without any duplication, or three completely different press releases.
- RS Noticeboard is consistently supportive of sourcing to established trade journals for article of the type I've written.
But kudos for the tiny sample of editors bullying my work off the project for reasons all to do with prejudice, and none to do with policy.WebHorizon (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon
- I am not 'tracking' you - I often look at other editor's edits in this kind of situation to see if there are patterns in their editing, especially when a large number of their edits are about 1 specific article. As to your other points: significant coverage is one of the main things that the notability guidelines cover. I may not always get things right on Wikipedia, but I think my general knowledge of policies and guidelines isn't too bad. Regarding reliable sources - just because a source may be reliable, that does not imply that everything written in that source is sufficient to show notability. Press releases are by definition not independent sources, so an article purely based on them would not show that the subject meets the criteria for inclusion.
- This is not a personal thing against you - but you may not understand that at Wikipedia, we go by consensus. At the moment, the consensus is that the article does not meet the criteria for inclusion. You may not like that, but with all due respect, we are not here to pander to your desires and wishes. If the subject really is notable, where is the cover in non-trade media? Where is the coverage in the NYT, Washington Post, London Times, etc - if you bother to look back through my history, you can find examples where I nominated an article for deletion and then withdrew my nomination, or where I commented at an AfD discussion and then changed my mind following the presented arguments. In this case, I see nothing to persuade me that the deletion was incorrect, but I am always happy to change my mind. I'm sorry that you see this as 'bullying' - I could see your behaviour as that of a child who isn't getting their own way and then blaming everyone else for the fact - I am sure that likewise, this impression of you is incorrect!
- I will be following the deletion review discussion - on the off-chance that a persuasive argument for restoring the article arises - but other than that, I feel that it is unlikely that I will contribute any more to the discussion about DeusM. Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 00:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Post script: I see that the discussion was closed as 'endorsed' - I hadn't got to it on my watchlist when I typed my last messages! So, the topic is now closed. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 00:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Your recent revert on Circball
The game is obviously non-notable. –η-θ 00:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- It may well be, but that is not a criteria for speedy deletion. Either PROD it, or take it to AfD. CSD criteria A7 specifically mentions what it can be used for (and sports/games are not one of the categories, and this is not a club) - and that notability is different to what A7 is about. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Yogcast
Thanks for letting me know. I used A7 - unremarkable person - and at the time I saw the article it was about two guys who apparently sat around and played games. What criteria should I have used? Thanks again for the heads-up! --NellieBly (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- I meant to untick the "notify tagger" box! I deleted it under the 'hoax' speedy deletion criteria. It's a close call in this kind of situation, though. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
If you look here, most pages with the prefix "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/" are candidates for speedy deletion. -- Jab7842 (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, as I'm about to go home from work, I'll not have the opportunity to look at that -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 07:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
We both seem to be working CSD--I was about to mark this as improve refs, when you deleted uit--it indicates he is the author of a published book, and tho this may not be notability, it indicates enough importance to pass a7 DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fair point, and I have restored it and its talk page. Thanks for catching that PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Robert Uhlmann
This should be a red link because in the article on Saturday (Basshunter song), link is a redirect link should be article (!) even red link - failure article. Eurohunter (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have removed that link, so it is no longer a problem! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 09:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Query on deletion
Hi Steve,
Please could you leave me a note when you respond.
I created a page you recently deleted [crusade_(reenactment)]. I was hoping to sort the reasoning for that page being removed, when other comparable pages have been allowed to stay - and hopefully find a way to get it back. Criteria used for deletion was A7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#A7
Re: Claims of significance/importance The group (it is a reenactment group) in question are the main provider to English Heritage, a British organisation responsible for most historic sites (and easily verifiable). They provide performances to tens of thousands of paying public every year. Most significantly though, they are the first and only major group to represent the crusades from all sides - various *small* cruader/templar/etc groups exist, but Crusade is orders of magnitude larger and offers Byzantine and Saracen performances too - unknown elsewhere in the country.
If this is not enough to justify an article, I would question why the following pages are allowed to exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Siege_Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_of_Saynt_George http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_of_the_Wolf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_English_Civil_War_Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Medieval_Alliance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Maritime_Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insel_Soldaten http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kompanie_1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kompania_Wolontarska http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacDas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediaeval_Combat_Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North/South_Alliance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regia_Anglorum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sealed_Knot_%28reenactment%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vikings_%28reenactment%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings!_Of_Middle_England Especially as many of these groups have no claim to significance,and in some cases are barely active or have grossly exaggerated membership (The Vikings in particular has ~350 members, but claims 1,500, as an example).
Thanks for your time, assistance, and any light you can shed. RenegadeOfficer (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for contacting me. Firstly, whether other, similar articles exist isn't really relevant (see here), it could be that they either meet the criteria for inclusion whereas yours does not, or they do not - in which case they should be deleted (if I get a chance, I'll look at those later). Either way, they have little bearing on whether this article should exist. For it to have an article, it should meet the criteria for inclusion which amongst other things requires significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources which are independent of the subject.
- However, speedy deletion requires only a claim of significance or important, which from what you are saying, there is - I will check the deleted article and if such a claim is there, I will restore it - however, I may put it up for discussion for deletion (see here for details) - either way, I will let you know!
- I should be able to do that later today. Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 09:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Steve :) RenegadeOfficer (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I've had another look at the article. The only 'claim of significance' would be Whilst other re-enactment groups of the period exist, it is currently the only major organisation in the UK portraying the crusades from all perspectives - which I do not feel is sufficient to meet the criteria necessary to prevent it being speedily deleted.
- I did a quick search for news coverage, etc, which would show that they meet the criteria for notability - obviously "Crusade" brings up a lot of hits! I tried "Crusade re-enactment" and "Crusade reenactment" - but neither of those brought up suitable reliable independent sources - the ones I found were from the organisation themselves! As such, I do not see that it would meet the notability criteria for inclusion, and so I will not be restoring the article. If you can find significant coverage of the organisation at reliable sources which are independent of the group (i.e. no press releases, no articles which are purely interviews of the group members), then let me know - with links where possible - and we can discuss this further. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 November 2011
- News and notes: Arb's resignation sparks lightning RfC, Fundraiser 2011 off to a strong start, GLAM in Qatar
- In the news: The closed, unfriendly world of Wikipedia, fundraiser fun and games, and chemists vs pornstars
- Recent research: Quantifying quality collaboration patterns, systemic bias, POV pushing, the impact of news events, and editors' reputation
- WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Bugle
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Flight Express, Inc.
Why does Flight Express, Inc keep getting deleted. i am trying to improve wikipedia and every comment I made was given a reference. Why can I not submit an article on Flight Express, inc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgmann912 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you say that it keeps getting deleted - I can only see the one time it was deleted. However, the references provided were not sufficient. The first one was from the company, the second one was from the company that owns it - while the third one was from a blog. Blogs are generally not considered to be reliable sources. There are some exceptions - such as if it is a blog of a reliable source such as the New York Times - but the author has to be a professional journalist or similar, with editorial oversight. In this case, the Airplane Trade Blog does not identify the author, so we cannot judge.
- The main reason the Flight Express, Inc. article was deleted was that it does not make a credible claim of importance or significance - being the largest civilian operator of a specific type of airplane does not meet that criteria in my opinion. However, perhaps it could indeed be sufficient to prevent speedy deletion.
- As such, I am going to restore the article. I should warn you, though, that I will then propose that it be deleted. You will need to find sources to verify this at reliable sources that are independent of the company (i.e. not on their website, their owner company's website, press releases, etc) - which I could not find - in order to ensure that it does not get deleted. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
you recently deleted my page on Georgia Gilmore and I believe it should be put back up. She was an importance force in the Civil Rights Movement and I would like the chance to finish the page (I only saved to avoid losing work) before it is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cscain (talk • contribs) 23:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I will look at this tonight or tomorrow (I am about to leave for work!) and respond PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I see that you have recreated it with many more citations. I will look at it properly another time when I have more time, and perhaps tidy it up a bit as required. If I feel that it should still be deleted, then I would take it to Articles for deletion, but I don't know one way or another - it looks better reference-wise though! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of CouponCabin
Phantomsteve,
I am the author of the CouponCabin page you recently deleted. I am not sure why you deleted the page--I understand that the page had been deleted prior to this, but this entry was not a re-post of the previous page, it was very different with more than 40 third-party references. Further, the company has been featured by many major media outlets in the past few months.
I declared any possible COI on my user talk page and the article discussion page. I also requested that editors contact me before deleting the page. I tried to remain neutral as I have a journalism degree and approached the article as if I were writing a research paper about the company. I also stated that any further edits that I wanted to make would go through the Template:Request Edits and would not be made live to the page. Finally, I included Wikilinks to other similar pages for the sites Coupons.com. Coupon Mountain and Coupon Smarter.
I spent days reviewing the standards and tried sincerely to abide by them. Please advise me on how I can create a page that will be within Wikipedia's standards. Is it not possible to create a page on a topic once it has been deleted? Even if the content changes?
If you would like to review the page again, a draft of it still exists in my sandbox.
Thank you for your time. ZeldaKarma (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hey ZeldaKarma, I believe your article fails several policies, including but not limited to - WP:EXIST, WP:N, among others. I hope this helps. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'll try to look at this tonight or tomorrow night, and see if I can give any more info to go with the excellent reply given by Rsrikanth05 -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 19:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK, having looked at it again, I feel that it still read very promotional (incidentally, as an admin, I can see most deleted articles); although there were a lot of references, I didn't see much that was reliable/independent/significant coverage and/or "coverage in news and other media being limited to tangential references by minor newspaper or magazine articles" to quote the AfD. As such, the issues in the deletion discussion have not been adequately addressed.
- Looking at the references, some were from the website (not independent), others from PR websites (i.e. from press releases, so not independent), others were single sentence mentions about the company, others were the company's name in a list of similar companies. Looking at them in detail (red for those which are not suitable; green for potentially useful sources, if reliability can be shown
- Dreher, Christina (June 6, 2011). "This Week's Focus: 6. Coupon Cabin LLC". Crain's Chicago Business. Retrieved 28 November 2011.
- Not independent: 2/3 of the article is direct quotes from the company's representative or "The company says..."
- "CouponCabin.com Site Info". Alexa Internet. Retrieved 2011-11-25.
- Alexa Rankings are not counted as evidence of notability
- "CouponCabin.com Surpasses 150,000 Coupons and 3,000 Stores Mark". PR Newswire. February 23, 2011. Retrieved 28 November 2011.
- From a company Press Release - not independent
- Tahmincioglu, Eve. "Can You Make It as an Entrepreneur?". Business on Main. MSN. Retrieved 28 November 2011.
- 3 sentences, all quotes from the founder of the company - not independent, not significant amount of coverage.
- "Entrepreneur of the Year 2011 Contest". Entrepreneur Magazine. 2011. Retrieved 28 November 2011.
- The Company Bio here was provided by the company - not independent
- Grant, Kelli. "The New Best Coupon-Clipping Sites". Deal of the Day. SmartMoney. Retrieved 28 November 2011.
- 1 sentence about the site - a quote from the company's chief savings officer - not independent
- Zaccaro, Laura. "Simple Steps for Saving an Extra $1,000 for Holiday Shopping". Good Morning America. ABC. Retrieved 28 November 2011.
- Mentioned in a list of coupon sites; not significant coverage of the company ("Shop smarter by using coupons. You can find coupons in the newspaper or on a variety of online sites such as CouponMom.com, Coupons.com and CouponCabin.com. Coupons offer a sure way to save money on items you may need.")
- "25 Easy Ways to Save Money in 2010". Good Housekeeping. Hearst Communications. Retrieved 28 November 2011.
- Used as an example of a coupon site ("For fast hunting, bookmark retailmenot.com and couponcabin.com as your go-to sites for the best of currently available coupons") - minor coverage
- "CouponCabin profile". CrunchBase. Retrieved 28 November 2011.
- Crunchbase is not a reliable source. From their FAQ: "You do not know if the data is accurate. As multiple people edit CrunchBase profiles of companies, financial organizations and people, some mistakes might be added. Information might also be out of date." - they do not verify or check the information.
- "CouponCabin Review". Coupon websites. Compared and Reviewed. Retrieved 26 November 2011.
- A potentially useful source, but only a limited of information could be referenced. That is not a problem, but the possible problem would be knowing if it counts as a reliable source.
- "About Us". CouponCabin.com. CouponCabin. Retrieved 28 November 2011.
- The company's website - not independent
- Tenorio, Vyvyan (November 17, 2011). "CouponCabin vs. Groupon". The Deal Pipeline. Retrieved 28 November 2011.
- Another possinly useful source, if reliability could be verified - I think this is the best source
- "CouponCabin.com Receives Strategic Growth Investment From JMI Equity". MarketWatch. October 20, 2011. Retrieved 29 November 2011.
- Not independent - from a press release
- "The Fastest Growing Companies: CouponCabin profile". The Inc.. 2010. Retrieved 28 November 2011.
- Not significant coverage, some stats but nothing substantial
- "Affiliates Looking to Leverage Offline Media". The Industry. Performance Marketing Association. Retrieved 28 November 2011.
- The parts about the company (14 sentences) are all quotes from the company's media buyer and "the company says..."
- "CouponCabin commercials". CouponCabin.com. CouponCabin. Retrieved 28 November 2011.
- From the company, not independent
- Ludwig, Sean (October 20, 2011). "CouponCabin raises a whopping $54M with verified coupon model". VentureBeat. Retrieved 28 November 2011.
- Appears to be based upon a company press release
- "JMI Equity Boosts CouponCabin.com". SocalTech.com. Retrieved 28 November 2011.
- Based on a press release ("The company said...") - not independent
- Moore, Stephanie (October 21, 2011). "CouponCabin snags $54 million for a major social and mobile push". Internet Retailer. Retrieved 28 November 2011.
- Based on a press release - quotes from company staff, and "the company says..."
- "CouponCabin’s Offices". Office Snapshots. Retrieved 24 November 2011.
- Information and pictures submitted by a member of the company - not independent
- Meneghetti, Fabiano. "The Cozy CouponCabin's Office". Fabiano's blog. Abduzeedo. Retrieved 20 November 2011.
- Blogs are generally not counted as reliable sources, and I see no reason to think this is one of the reliable ones. It is also basically the same as the previous source
- "Web Company Calls Brick and Mortar Home". Wallstreet Journal. May 2011. Retrieved 25 November 2011.
- The Wallstreet Journal's "Workplace of the week", as I understand it, is based on what the company says - it's almost like a press release! Not independent
- Karp, Gregory (February 13, 2011). "Cheap thrills: Chicago long a hotbed for online coupons, discount deals". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 25 November 2011.
- The company is mentioned as one of many such companies - and the information about the company is in the form of statemetns by the company - not independent
- "Bill Status of HB3659". Illinois 96th General Assembly. State of Illinois. Retrieved 25 November 2011.
- Not about the company, but about the bill which affects them. Useful as background information, but not as a reference for the company
- "Public Act 096-1544". Illinois General Assembly. Retrieved 28 November 2011.
- As the previous reference
- Sostak, John. "Amazon ends affiliate network in Illinois after Governor Pat Quinn passes a law to tax online merchants". Chicago Call. Chicago Call. Retrieved 25 November 2011.
- The section about the company is a quote from the CEO - not independent
- Miller, Rich. "Quinn signs “Amazon Tax” into law - Coupon Cabin may move to Indiana". Capitol Fax. Retrieved 23 November 2011.
- Another direct quote from the CEO - not independent
- "CouponCabin Signals It Will Leave Illinois Due To Newly Passed Amazon Tax". ReveNews. March 11, 2011. Retrieved 25 November 2011.
- Yet another direct CEO quote
- Dreher, Christina (June 6, 2011). "This Week's Focus: 6. Coupon Cabin LLC". Crain's Chicago Business. Retrieved 28 November 2011.
- And so on.... almost all the coverage available is based on press releases or direct quotes from people who work for the company - nothing independent.
- As such, I see no reason to reverse the deletion, as the problems identified in the AfD have not been addressed, so the speedy deletion criteria was met.
- Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'll try to look at this tonight or tomorrow night, and see if I can give any more info to go with the excellent reply given by Rsrikanth05 -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 19:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)