Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moneysavingexpert.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. (aeropa gitica) 13:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Moneysavingexpert.com
This article was deleted after the first AfD decided it was spam, then rewritten in user space and after a deletion review restored into the article space. The questions for this round are then: 1. Does this article conform with WP:NPOV now, and 2. Is the company itself notable? Procedural listing, so I abstain. ~ trialsanderrors 16:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Generates quite a bit of hits on Google and has a pretty good Alexa ranking. The creator of the website is a well-known journalist, as well. It also has been written about in newspaper sources, which passes WP:WEB. --  Nishkid64  Talk Contribs   17:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The website is notable, and easily meets WP:WEB as the subject of several third party "works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles" and "has won a well known and independent award".  The Alexa rating is about 3,000.  (All referenced in the article.)  I abstain on the NPOV issue.  Mr Stephen 17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten. It's referenced well enough, and seems to pass WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, meets WP:WEB guideline on multiple counts. RFerreira 07:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is this article really NOPV?  I have looked at the article and looked at the website it describes.  The text in the article seems to closely reflect the text that the website uses to promote itself.    Furthermore, though it is not mentioned in the article, the website described in the article is apparently a for-profit website.  External links that consumers are encouraged to click on to see recommendations of how to save money, result in the website itself receiving money from the commercial websites that the consumer links to.  I am concerned that this article is in effect advertising a for-profit website.   I think we should look into this more carefully before deciding.  Dendennis 21:35, 29 August 2006
 * 'Comment. The exact same could be said about any notable for-profit website.  RFerreira 06:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Comment (from article contributer). The text of the article does closely reflect the the text the site uses to promote itself, but how else could the article be done and properly reference sources? If you look at newspaper reviews and mentions (e.g. here or search for it here) of the site then possibly you may be able to find more NPoV reviews, but from what I can see newspapers (being lazy) just seem to reprint information from press releases or just lift text directly from the site themselves. I could put up things I find negative about the site, but without finding someone in print who agrees to quote, it would be my personal review. It does say in the info box that the site is commercial and more could be said on this, but I didn't  see any Wikipedia articles mentioning how other sites were funded and I wondered how appropriate it was. I'll would gladly write a whole section on this right now, but I'm reluctant to change the article during a review Aldaden 08:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Info on how site funded available here Aldaden 08:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ... which is already in the article as reference 4 (atm), titled " Moneysavingexpert - How this site is financed". Mr Stephen 09:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems to meet WP:WEB on many counts.  Let me declare an interest though, I came to Wiki after reading one of Martin Lewis's blogs recently and am a regular user and fan of the site, which is a huge vast resource of help to many people; and widely acclaimed as such in the UK.  It's interesting to compare it to similar UK money sites.  We have an entry for Moneysupermarket (Alexa rank 5414 compared to MoneySavingExpert 3083) and even Housepricecrash (Alexa rank 15,000).  This site even has a motion in the UK House of Commons supporting its work.  As for the finances, I've just been reading through it and can't see any conflict. Having read the linked source on the subject it seemed clear to me that this site is 'ethical stance with the principles of being free to use with no advertisements[3], independent, unbiased and journalistic in all its research and money-saving articles' whilst at the same time commercial (as noted in the info box).  Perhaps its also worth us all having perspective we're on Wiki, this article can be changed and amended we're really talking about whether the entry is worthy and its clear to me it is. Paul  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.189.79.78 (talk • contribs).
 * 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.