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. Sr13 05:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable; no references quoted to back article up. VTSPOWER 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say keep. Article is pretty much a stub, but kayak.com seems to be emerging as a notable competitor to Expedia, Travelocity and similar travel booking sites, and from the number of posters on its forums, seems to have thousands of users.--Spewey 01:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep news search brings back plenty of substantive coverage, looks to me like it meets WP:WEB. Article isn't that great, but could improve. Capmango 01:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has many secondary reviews74.242.184.198 05:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keepIf it meets notability guides just in need of a rewrite, will have a go later, main issue is notability --Nate1481(t/c) 08:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I did a cleanup and added some sources. --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find anything independent on this via altavista... tons of hits, but they are all Kayak.com websites.Balloonman 23:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.