Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeatThatQuote.com (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The reasons mentioned for deletion are actually either a) reasons for editing / cleanup (used for self-promotion, bad sources) or b) not valid reasons for deletion (not popular anymore, WP:JNN). The delete !voters failed to explain why the subject is not notable anymore. As such, there was no consensus for deletion. Whether cleanup is required is something that can and should be discussed at the article's talk page. Regards  So Why  13:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

BeatThatQuote.com
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable, self-promotion

Nominated for deletion because I do not believe the site is notable, and the article has a history of being used for self-promotion. Furthermore, at least two of the references appear to be just recycled press releases. A look at Alexa's traffic rankings also indicates that traffic has collapsed since the 2008 period which is cited for notability. Shritwod (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * keep, if it was notable in 2008 it's notable now. I'm impressed by the FT article. Polarpanda (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps John Paleomylites might be notable as an entrepreneur, but I feel that this particular website is not. The FT article was from 2006, nearly three and a half years ago. Shritwod (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What does the fact that a source is from three and a half years ago have to do with whether an encyclopedia article should be deleted? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If this truly was a notable business, there would be more than a quote from three and a half years ago in the FT to back it up. Also, note that CompareTheMarket.com which is a substantially larger and more notable operation does not even have its own entry, just a mention of its parent BGL Group. Yes, there are some bits and pieces here and there but I really don't think that this passes the notability test. Shritwod (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rewrite The article has already been through nomination once with a Keep consensus. I feel that it should be rewritten to tone down the promotional style. LoudHowie (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or rewrite Over promotional. It might be useful if someone with a bit of time could add the other side of the coin. (Don't look at me....) Peridon (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and DePuff Many internet sites have lower traffic over the past two years -- but "once notable, always notable" was a byword. Best solution is to remove the problem prose. Collect (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Never thought this article justified it's existence Jasonfward (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2009 (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.