Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PriceRunner

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PriceRunner[edit]

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

It's an international company, sold in 2004 for several million. But I couldn't find the coverage to meet either WP:ORG or WP:GNG, and statements that suggested notability could only be confirmed by primary sources. This has been tagged for notability for seven years; let's hope it can be resolved now. Boleyn (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom Wgolf (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer As this has been tagged for notability for over 7 years, can I ask that it is relisted again rather than closed due to lack of participation? Boleyn (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom lacks adequate third party coverage and fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, four reliable sources have been added during the nomination--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, albeit on the weak side: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Did a brief search, this current article doesn't assert the company's notability, but its considered one of the leading shopping comparison services, or was at one point. The article needs some work, but shouldn't be deleted completely 2605:6000:E9C0:2400:24E3:D2C1:6E59:87EF (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as above. J 1982 (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2015 (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.