Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quidco


 * 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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 19:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Quidco

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable webiste per WP:WEB.RJASE1 Talk  01:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It apparently got a story in the Guardian. Ab e g92 contribs 02:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I see the references, but I don't buy the notability. YechielMan 07:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Change to keep I was asked to revisit this discussion. It is clear to me that the website is notable. YechielMan 14:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Only one item of media coverage is non-trivial.  Rook wood  Dept. of Mysteries 13:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete . One article (which is here, if anyone wants to read it) is not enough to confer notability on its own. J Milburn 13:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep: I was also asked to revist this discussion, a practice which many disapprove of. However, the amount of press coverage this article is now showing that talks of the site definately makes it notable, in my eyes. That said, both some of the comments here, and, to an extent, the article itself, are somewhat adverty. Please be careful about bias slipping into this article. J Milburn 20:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, many thanks. I was worried about bias slipping into the article and removed an earlier edit to the talk page. Supposed 20:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That article is in The Independent, the other The Guardian. So, two articles but more if you count those listed in this link referred to below by IdentzSupposed 11:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. It is an important site. In the UK Cashback Websites are a growing phenomenon. Quidco is one of the biggest and most respected (Depending on who you believe it may be the biggest, but if not it is at least in the top three). If you go to any site or forum that discusses Cashback Websites then Quidco is mentioned more than any other. The reason I say weak is because the article is poor and although Quidco is the leader in its field, it is not special enough to be on its own here without having articles about other leading Cashback Websites. I'd rather see this article improved, and more articles about similar sites, than this one go. Identz 15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that Quidco has a page where it highlights where it has been discussed in the news here. It has been in the news several times. Identz 15:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The main difficulity is with notability. I personally think sites like quidco and topcashback are notable because they currently offer the best deal for consumers, i.e. 100% cashback on purchases, unlike those like rpoints which give 100%less. I'm troubled because some notability appears due to bias in the media. For example Martin Lewis, recommends rpoints over quidco giving a very dubious example of how rpoints apparently offers more savings, most cashback users I'm sure would disagree! Another example of terrible bias is the BBCs touting of MrsCashback which if you read this article is a terrible deal for consumers. Note that quidco is mentioned and given barely any coverage, it's advantages are not mentioned. Do you think it is right to create an article on Mrs Cashback if there were enough of these biased articles, because it would be notable? What would have been achieved? The notability of a company in the media seems determined by factors which do not have the interests of the consumer (in this case to moneysaving) in mind. I know what wikipedia is NOT, but is it NOT a good source of information for consumers? Supposed 15:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Where on the internet are there attempts to wite articles on these companies and cashback sites in general in an objective and unbiased manner? very few notable places, apart from wikipedia. Again this is why I'm eager to keep this article. Also why should a large company which offers poor value for the consumer be given more notability on wikipedia than a tiny one which offers amazing value? Supposed 16:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note, Supposed, that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, meaning it integrates information derived from secondary sources. What you seem to be proposing is that this Wikipedia article integrate information from primary sources, but this is original research and synthesis, and is against our rules. If as you suggest there are no attempts to write articles on these companies, then they lack secondary sources altogether and fail notability guidelines. Finally, notability has nothing to do with the merits of the financial transactions offered. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice, its merits therefore do make it notable as those merits are worthy of being noted, as per WP:CORP and the change it has caused in other incentivised companies.Supposed 13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - not sure that notability has been established yet. Ditto Dhartung's comment that the site may have legitimate merits, but that doesn't make it notable.  Montco 02:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Cashback Websites with the understanding on the part of the writer that WP is not a consumer resource. --Mary quite contrary (hai?) 20:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is about the only place on the internet you will find a NPOV on a company, to avoid making biased purchasing decisions I would consult wikipedia. However with this article gone, wikipedia is infact biased against the interests of the consumer. Wikipedia lists information on companies, therefore it will always be used as a consumer resource, if it doesn't list details on every company then it's biased. Supposed 10:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that every single company that exists should have its own WP article? --Mary quite contrary (hai?) 17:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, sorry I was a little hasty. The reason I say no is you can list the advantages of companies like Quidco on one page, toegether. The benefit of listing every company is you have a fairly reliable unbiased source of information on companies, information that exists in a biased form elsewhere. So merge the articles, but accept that the merged article will be used as a consumer resource, as will wikipedia. It is a better resource, than the cashback businesses which censor any mention of companies like quidco, an attempt to protect their large profits. That's perhaps something else which should be added to the article. :-) Supposed 03:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would most definitely be against a Merge. When you have separate articles on different pages, there is a control mechanism on what Cashback Sites gets listed. This AfD discussion is such a control. But when you start listing details of the websites on the Cashback Websites article, it is going to be extremely difficult to make sure only the most notable sites are listed.
 * On the Cashback Websites article, I tried to make a qualification for what sites should be on the example sites listed at the bottom of the page by referring to a chart that lists the sites by alexa ranking. As I said in the talk page I was trying to make sure that only the most popular sites were listed. I'd rather see no individual Cashback Sites at all listed than have to aruge about which of the 50+ sites are notable enough. Those of us who follow cashback sites know almost immediately what sites should be included, but explaining to other editors who aren't familiar with them is much more difficult. Identz 15:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To some extent I agree with you, and would definately rather keep the articles. It's almost academic anyway as Quidco definately passes WP:Corp and WP:WEB. I feel this AfD, draws attention to the flaw in the notability criteria of companies. The notability of companies is being made so through the bias of the media! Therefore, wikipedia, displays this slant, wikipedia is slanted toward the bias of the media. In this case the media have focused their reports on companies that offer poor value for the consumer whilst neglecting consumer conscience alternatives. Even the self proclaimed Moneysavingexpert himself has done this with his slanted report on the benefits of rpoints over quidco.. What the motives of the media are in these moves, you can only guess but wikipedia rather perversely, gives them coverage too.Supposed 11:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Quidco, were the first cashback website to introduce 100% cashback, most cashback websites at the time offered 50%. On purchases such as mobile phones[] this was a considerate saving. This created a trend, as rivals, most notably, rpoints tried to compete by offering a 'Highest Cashback Promise, and FreeFivers who created a new website, The Cashback Junction. The effect quidco had is also reflected in Alexa rankings, who now report quidco as recieving more traffic than rpoints. So even without the biased media on the company, it is notable because of the effect it had on companies and on an industry which is notable, per guidelines on WP:CORP Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice ... Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations. Supposed 12:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article from The Times is here. Note that when it refers to rpoints it specifically mentions the 'Highest Cashback Promise', showing the trend which quidco set has been noticed by the media. Almost a year earlier The Times wrote their first article on cashback, however that time the article was dedicated to large cashback websites, with only a brief reference to the smaller sites. They ignored the benefits offered by quidco. This demonstrates bias in the media again toward larger sites. Bias that wikipedia, per WP:CORP are trying to avoid. Supposed 13:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I must have a different copy of WP:CORP than you. My copy says nothing about trying to right the inequity in coverage of smaller companies caused by media bias.  It just states that multiple non-trivial sources are required, and then uses a variety of examples to explain that.  Jerry 21:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It says, "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice ... Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.. And in this case, quidco was notable before the articles (some you missed) on it were published because it was an incentivised site worthy of note. It is worthy of note not just due to its popularity, it has always been worthy of note because it ""attracts notice" due to its alternative business model etc Supposed 22:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete nn. Mukadderat 16:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Among the three provided sources, only one can be considered as a source to determine notability. One is a press release by the company, and the other is the company website.  Since an extensive search does not yield additional sources, nor are any asserted by the article, it fails WP:CORP/WP:WEB, as lacking "multiple" non-trivial independant sources.  Jerry 21:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The website meets WP:CORP, it has "multiple non-trivial independent sources", it features in The Guardian, The Independent, The BBC and twice in The Times . It also has been referred to, by Reuters, Moneyweek, Motley Fool and moneysavingexpert. Supposed 22:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT Jerry 01:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've updated the article accordingly. Do you still object to its inclusion? Supposed 03:22, 14 April 2007 (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.