Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosper (web site)


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 18:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Prosper (web site)
Non notable web site ( A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 00:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC) 'This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!' King of Hearts | (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable and spamvertisement. Alexa search for www.prosper.com brings back results for Normanrockwell.com. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag_of_Texas.svg|30px]] 00:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Hohohob 00:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. This article may currently be vanity/advertising, but the web site has gotten non-trivial coverage in Business Week and New York Times.  That satisfies Notability (websites).   dbtfz talk 00:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per dbtfz MadCow257 01:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleanup and improve. --Ter e nce Ong 03:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep; clean it up and perhaps some extra research into the significance entry would be good. Deckiller 04:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up.--Vercalos 04:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, needs wikified but seems just about wikiworthy  D e iz  04:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn promo. mikka (t) 05:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Cited in NYT, hence wiki-notable. Ethereal 05:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per dbtfz  Wh e  re  (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  14:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep needs cleanup, but notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 17:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Clean-up -- Alpha269 15:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless cleaned up and made to look less like an advert. It's all well and good to say "keep and cleanup", but who's going to do it? Stifle 09:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Cleanup. Chairman S.  Talk  01:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've cleaned up the article a bit and added references.   dbtfz talk 01:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Cleanup, well known. --Masssiveego 04:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:WEB with the NYT and other mention. kotepho 05:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:WEB Criterion 1. ---Marcus- 09:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has good references and is an interesting concept. SilkTork 12:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep has mainstream media coverage, decent Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Important wesbite as it is a very novel and ingenious idea. Certainly could do with a bit of editing, but deletion is really not a serious proposal.


 * 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.