Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quidco (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   delete. see also, Vanispamcruftisement. -- Cirt (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Quidco
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

All the current references are at Quidco's own site, so not independent. All the references that I can find at reliable sources are minor ones, mentioning in a list of similar websites, etc. Note: the last AfD in 2007 closed as no concensus. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC) (categories)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I would agree the article appears to have been edited by some people to promote the site, the company is notable, as I explained several times the last time deletion was proposed, years ago, as the following quote from then demonstrats

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2010 (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) Supposed (talk)
 * Tentative delete. Current references are not independent. Phantomsteve asserts that independent references he has found are minor. Supposed disputes this. However, of the sources Supposed raises, the ones that load are the BBC and the 2 in the Times. In all 3 cases, Quidco is mentioned briefly and in passing, providing in one or two sentences the same info one could presumably find in the company's marketing material. This does not meet the bar of "non-triviality" or of independence. I'm marking my delete !vote as tentative, since I'm willing to change my mind if someone does find an independent reliable source with significant coverage of Quidco as a topic. But let's not forget the goal of our notability guidelines. It's not "has this entity been mentioned somewhere somehow in the press", it is "is there enough nontrivial and independent material published in reliable secondary sources to enable a thoughtful wikipedia article". Martinp (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Article reads like a corporate ad. As noted previously, anything you read about this company on the Wikpedia article, you would likely find on their own website. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
 * Comment' Indeed it does read like a corporate ad but if you look back at what it looked like when it last went through the AfD process it was very different. I'd delete it in its current form but maybe revert it back to how it was during the last AfD and nominate it again? One thing I do know is that quidco is probably the most notable reward website out there and that is really saying something as it competes with offerings from microsoft and shopping.com. Supposed (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2010 (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.