Talk:Colnect

"See also" page
If anyone else know any wiki articles that talk about the collecting of any collectibles, please feel free to add, thanks! Rubycored (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Statitics table
This table come from version germany of this hope it is okay now translation

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Colnect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090130111818/http://it.themarker.com:80/tmit/article/3471 to http://it.themarker.com/tmit/article/3471

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colnect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://it.themarker.com/tmit/article/3471
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429033415/http://nonickconference.com/2009/04/26/colnect-wins-this-years-startup-20/ to http://nonickconference.com/2009/04/26/colnect-wins-this-years-startup-20/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion?
I count at least 8 independent sources in this article over a span of 9 years, this article is also available in numerous other language Wikipedia's, how again is this website not notable? --Donald Trung (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll have to do a source-specific analysis, esp. in light of this guideline:--
 * Reference 1 is reliable and covers the subject, prominently. ✅
 * Reference 2 and Reference 14 is not reliable.See this policy.
 * Reference 3 to Reference 11 and Reference 13 don't contribute an iota to establishment of notability, (obviously) :)
 * Reference 12 is typical PR-stuff and per RSN, TechCrunch has a reputation for these.....
 * Reference 15 to Reference 18--Typical news-stuff about startup-ecosystem(s) and there is a solid consensus that all these non-notable awards which are covered in non-notable blogs don't lend any to notability.  &#x222F; WBG converse 12:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Reference 15 to Reference 18--Typical news-stuff about startup-ecosystem(s) and there is a solid consensus that all these non-notable awards which are covered in non-notable blogs don't lend any to notability.  &#x222F; WBG converse 12:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)