Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoopla

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 13:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoopla[edit]

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

One of many property sale price listing websites listing data from HM Land Registry. Insufficient independent in-depth sources, consequently, fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets and exceeds the criteria of WP:N and WP:CORP by wide margins. No reason at all thus presented for deletion, nor am I able to divine one. WilyD 20:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD. The sources not only exist, but are in the article. A couple of the sources could be removed as they really don't qualify as wp:rs (and look spammy) but there are least two that clearly demonstrate notability, and pass wp:corp. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think notability can be established. Zoopla.co.uk has an Alexa ranking of 30,258, which indicates a fair amount of traffic.  LinguistAtLarge  01:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The key issue for me, as proposer, are (from WP:CORP) -
    • the definition of significant coverage. I'd like the closing admin to define this.
    • the extent to which product placement is involved (WP:CORP Note 2)
    • whether the company is "worthy of being noted"

It struck me as odd that this company has a WP article, whilst others offering the same service, don't. It looks to me as if WP is being used for commercial publicity. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 18:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • If the other companies have sources that have written about them in reliable publications, which can be verified, then by all means, please write an article on them. That their competitors don't have articles is a textbook non-reason to delete any article. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forgot to add: You may want to reconsider your request for the closing admin. I am sure you are a very nice person and all, but it makes it appear as if you are a pompus ass who is being rude and owed something when you ask like that. I have the utmost confident that you really don't think this, but I was concerned that others may construe your words in this manner. It is better to instead ask the admin politely after the AFD closes. Admins are surprisingly similar to humans and often react to stimuli in a similar manner. To answer your question, you should read WP:GNG as it states: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[1] DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only two of the listed references (this one and this one) are any good to determine notability. The other are either not independent or not non-trivial; not always a problem with sourcing, but it is a problem with determing notability. - Mgm|(talk) 18:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 18:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously. It's a highly popular website in the UK, I've even heard people using the verb "to zoopla" their neighbours. Highly relevant site, often quoted in the media, and in any houseseeker's bookmarks. Lists houses sold in every street in the UK, over the past decade or so, and how much it sold for. A very relevant site. I think we should also consider creating a page for houseprices.co.uk while we're at it... Tris2000 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep known about even in the US. The conventional references are minimal, but this is not uncommon for websites--the usual criteria dont really hold--but the fault is that of our criteria, not the lack of essential notability. DGG (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the author, I would obviously say this - but think it is justified by all the comments above. This is my first full article, I wrote it as I like the site and think it is unique and interesting particularly because of the 'wisdom of the crowds' angle - Zoopla is different from houseprices.co.uk and the other static pricing websites people have mentioned because of the ugc elements and because it calculates current valuation estimates. It appears to be large, fast-growing and noteworthy. In writing the article, I also came across other references in noteworthy publications like The Guardian. If there are improvements to be made to references etc, would be delighted for folks to contribute to making these and helping my humble and stumbling efforts to improve the entry. Moneybagsuk (talk) 21:00, 20 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zoopla&oldid=1138706888"