Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lending Club

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 – multiple independent references in reliable sources. KrakatoaKatie 01:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lending Club

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. Has a few links but they seem to be self references, press releases and trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable. Also, per Hu12.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 02:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the sources and external links are from the company itself (except for a single USA Today article, which wouldn't load for me, and which may or may not have had specific coverage of the company). That's not sufficient to establish notability. Nick Graves (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep > 100 instances of RS coverage including such non-notable and unreliable sources souch as MSN Money, USA Today, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, among others. It's not yet at the level of Prosper but its received significant secondary coverage. Not in the article doesn't mean it doesn't exist. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those seem to be aggregated from /PRNewswire/MyWire/AccessMyLibrary.com which is all NN self publish/PR sites. --Hu12 (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AccessMyLibrary reproduces articles from print publications, much in the same way that ProQuest does. It's a perfectly valid search site, very useful for those who don't have subscriptions to larger, better ones. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CNN Money, Denver Post, Boston Globe. None are from AML, all are reliable sources with independent coverage, not press releases. The existence of some press releases doesn't invalidate the other coverage. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - aren't tech crunch and usaday sort of a big deal? I saw michael arrington on Charlie Rose. --Emesee (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Polevaults over notability requirements. Sources are easy to find. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has had numerous references in mainstream media, including ABC News (which I just added), and has many more. Gary King (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the references provided in Lending_Club#References indicate sufficient coverage of this website in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 01:29, 12 April 2008 (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.