Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optoutprescreen.com

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 CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optoutprescreen.com[edit]

Possible advertising, but written by an established user who states there are enough references to make it notable SGGH ^speak! 15:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's an FTC-endorsed site and the only one of its kind. Sarsaparilla (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. In addition, the sourcing is poor and I don't really see how it could possibly be expanded--as it stands the article is little more than a place to stick a link. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral until there are reliable references. --Solumeiras (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep but clean up the crappy grammar. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be notable with the FTC backing, but is written like an advertisement. Of the sources, only one can be seen as truly reliable, the FTC site, and it's mostly in passing. The only other reliable site doesn't even mention the site, so is trivial, and the remaining two aren't reliable, being the site itself and a blog. In order for this to be kept, it would need to be neutrally re-written and provide more, and more useful, references. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note also that there have been no edits since February 1st to address the issues brought up in the nomination and statements. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the FTC is sufficient sourcing, there is in addition a Washington Post mention [1], there is a major article on Inforworld [2] -- its listed as their blog, but its actually a column by one of their usual and respected editors. the service is notable, and the article is not very spammy. DGG (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
REVISED Article significantly cleaned up. -- RoninBK _{T C} 12:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is an important topic that has much confusion around it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnull (talk • contribs) 02:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I have not reviewed the original article, however its present revision provides useful information in affirming the site's legitamacy and providing information to those who are interested yet hesitant about the site. Yoooder (talk) 04:38, 23 February 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.