Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go Compare

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. (I know I shouldn't comment here, but this runs TV ads in the UK - overwhelmingly notable) Scott Mac (Doc) 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go Compare

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable? Shouldn't we be a bit more ruthless with companies so that WP does not become an advertising medium for all manner of companies? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article could be kept if it changes from a press release/advertisement into a stub regarding the fact there is a small amount of major media coverage about the company and its advertising being apparently "annoying", which the article certainly is Rotovia (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. The AfD notice was removed from this article when it was moved on 30 January and I have just restored it, so it might be a good idea to let this discussion run for a few extra days. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is clearly notable as, rather one of "all manner of companies", it is a household name in the UK, confirmable by cursory searches. The way to be ruthless with such companies is to remove unsourced or self-sourced promotional content and replace it with reliably sourced content, as I have done. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is clearly notability, and the article has clear rs.sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 00:20, 3 February 2010 (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.