Deletion of DealDash

Comment: thinking more on the "consumer protection" angle of this, my input on this would be that it's better to ''delete'' the article as a stand-alone page vs keeping it. Consumers can just as easily find the Consumer Report article as this page. But: any potential future COI editors have no access to CR pieces, while they could manipulate this page, once the AfD passes and they eyes are not on it. Since the notability is rather marginal, I'd still advocate deletion and / or redirection. As I noted above, when I encountered the page it was subtly promotional and  like, and I'm afraid it would be easy for this page to continue its promotional purpose. As an alternative to deletion, the page can be redirected to Bidding fee auction. Anything useful (a couple of sentences) can be picked up from the article history
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:MANUAL)

Comment: I thin penny auctions are huge gamble and very addicting for some. However, they are by no means a scam. They are a legitimate business model which some people like and some people don't. I disagree with prostitution, but I am not about to call Moonlite BunnyRanch immoral because I disagree with it. I believe the references presented, especially AdWeek meet . Of course, here come the hurnalism comments so I would ask how the AdWeek article qualifies as such. As far as keeping promotion off the page, I don't think we can. Unfortunately, too many people come to Wikipedia without knowing the rules and simply try to promote their businesses. If we delete everything that has a chance of being promoted, we would need to eliminate half of Wikipedia. It sucks as there really is no balance, but deleting an article to avoid a risk of future promotional content would bastardize the AfD process
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:C)