Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quidco (3rd nomination)

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quidco

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

See prior AFD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quidco (2nd nomination), where consensus was to delete. User has attempted some work on a proposed draft article. Procedural nomination, no opinion expressed by nominator on this current incarnation of the article on this company (though to have disclosure I did express one in the prior AFD close, linked above). Bringing here to AFD again for assessment of this version of the article from a draft by Stuartcoggins (talk · contribs). Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I went through the cites that are in the article and other then "It exists" and "this is how it works" I don't feel that it passes WP:N. Simply put the article is very much WP:ARTSPAM. There is also some WP:OR in some areas where I highly doubt that there is any reliable sources available for citation. - Pmedema (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that it does meet WP:N and went into this in some considerable detail when it was first nominated for deletion over two years ago. Supposed (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Delete !vote taken back as I should have taken the further step to look for other references. I based my view on the cites that were in the article at that time. - Pmedema (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"it is notable because of the effect it had on companies and on an industry which is notable, per guidelines on WP:CORP. It says"worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice ... Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.. And in this case, quidco was notable before the articles on it were published because it was an incentivised site worthy of note. It is worthy of note not just due to its popularity, it has always been worthy of note because it ""attracts notice" due to its alternative business model etc". The curious thing about this now though is that quidco is now one of the largest cashback websites on the internet.... but the point still stands that its notability is more down to the alternative business model (i.e.- 100% cashback) that it used to change the affiliate marketing industry, not the size of the company. Supposed (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The website meets WP:CORP, it has "multiple non-trivial independent sources". Regards, Asterion^talk 16:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References from the Daily Mail, the Observer, and the Guardian clearly establish its notability. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significantly covered by reliable sources. Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has sources from the Daily Mail. Well covered too. Minima c (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue is how 'trivial' is defined. There have been concerns in the past over the coverage of quidco in these independent sources. People have complained that although the sources aren't trivial (Guardian etc.), quidco perhaps only gets a trivial mention within some of those articles which might lead to the proliferation of articles on cashback sites on wikipedia. As Top CashBack shows this is already happening. The alternative is to perhaps include quidco as part of another article on reward websites. Corporate dominance in notability seems almost unavoidable though as Bing Cashback proves. Supposed (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to be honest, even though I am the creator of the quidco article, I would back its deletion on the basis of violation of WP:ARTSPAM. I've grown tired over the years trying to police this, it seems almost a magnet for it even though there are revisions of this article that are perfectly fine on wikipedia. Supposed (talk) 04:46, 21 October 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.