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 speedy keep. Eminently notable: WP:SKCRIT #3 may apply, but, either way, no reason to let this drag out for another 153 hours . (non-admin closure) — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparethemarket.com[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this looks like an obvious promotion of an organization violating WP:NOT:ADVERTISING Jonnymoon96 (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable website that has been mentioned in multiple media. Passes WP:GNG. This is Paul (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul. ↅ𝜞 _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 22:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear GNG pass. This AfD has no chance of succeeding. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not from the UK and even I've seen/heard of this company's commercials at the very least. Obvious GNG pass. Nate • (chatter) 04:37, 22 June 2017 (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.