Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Budgetplaces.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   delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Budgetplaces.com

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No WP:Reliable sources to establish WP:CORP notability, just an Alexa link and press-release type stuff. Was rejected four times at WP:AFC and subsequently created by requester. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - really doesn't justify notability in any verifiable way. The Alexa link certainly doesn't help. Several Times (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

A source from Financial Times has been added to history and please note that a link of other wiki was included. Regarding notability, budgetplaces.com is a business based in a website that millions of different people visits and a lot of them would be interested to know more about the company where they are expending their money. Joandó Talk 17:12, 29 August 2011
 * Regardless of the amount of traffic the website may receive, for it to have an article here it must be notable and verifiable. The guidelines for this notability are outlined here. You may also want to see WP:WEB.  Several Times (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Several sources from around the world added to show the impact of Palamon Capital Partners purchasing a majority stake on EnGrande S.L. (owner of budgetplaces.com). I hope this would help to add notability to the company. Joandó Talk 15:25, 30 August 2011


 * Delete independent sources are not optional. The FT references seems to be two sentences long, is it hidden behind a broken paywall or something? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2011 (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.