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. Neıl ☄ 11:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeProblems[edit]

Lack of clear notability, sourcing. Does not appear to be particularly notable. rootology (C)(T) 13:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important topic and organisation. Sources are presented in the article, images and timestepping. Do not delete it. --Dima1 (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the multiple non-trivial 3rd party source that are required per WP:Notability? rootology (C)(T) 13:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:WEB requires multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site. The Times article mentions the site as one of many dealing with customer complaints, it is not about this site in particular, which just leaves The Register article. That is not enough to pass the notability requirements. Tassedethe (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but tag any problems) as the article is the subject of one primary review and has various mentions in others, plus the bar should be lower for this type of site, which is less likely to garner attention. WikiScrubber (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well, I like consumer organizations, but this seems to be just an internet forum. While there is a single "primary review" (per previous comment), it still doesn't seem to rise above the notability radar screen. I'm assuming that a website or internet forum is not notable based on a single review or occasional media citations. HG | Talk 06:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of substantial third-party coverage. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2008 (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.