Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quatloos (website)

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 Ryan Postlethwaite 11:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Quatloos (website)

Quatloos (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete As it stands, the article does not meet WP:WEB criteria (The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section.). Most references linked on the talk page have it as part of a list with other websites. JianLi 00:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep Maybe I'm not totally up on the Wiki policies, but why delete an article that provides a useful description of a useful website? I've personally consulted it many times as a resource on fraudulent schemes. If the wikipedia entry exists, then people can edit it and make it better. If it's deleted, then not only are future editors deterred, but the work of the people who created the entry is being destroyed. Seems not only pointless but disrespectful to the community members who worked on it. Oblivy 04:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment & keep. Ad JianLi said, by Wiki policy, a website does indeed have to have acchieved some level of notability to be worthy of having a wikipedia page. I have added references from PCMag attesting to the usefulness of the site, so I think the article now clears the WP:WEB bar. DMacks 06:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless compliance with WP:WEB is demonstrated. All we have at the moment is that it was "site of the week" in one magazine. --kingboyk 14:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Now also "Best of the Web" from another. DMacks 14:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep The website has been given an award from Forbes, a notable financial magazine, then I think it meets criterion 2 of WP;WEB, and is notable. Especially when it's put in an inline citation.--Kylohk 08:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Criterion 2 seems to have been met, as discussed above. Famspear 12:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I may not have time to make my reasoning clear, before I return home around 16 May, but it seems notable, per references in notable financial publications such as Forbes and the Motley Fool. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. What Kylohk and Famspear said. --63.25.251.198 12:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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.