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. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kashless.org[edit]

Kashless.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Closed website that does not meet WP:WEB. Citations are press releases and startup blogs. Shii (tock) 01:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Citations are not solely press releases and startup blogs whatsoever. Here are some reliable sources:

• Hal Schwartz, Eric (July 26, 2009). "Kashless Gets Star Power". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved December 5, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Kaplan, Jeremy (July 23, 2009). "Free-Stuff Site Kashless Prepping for Major Expansion". PC Magazine. Retrieved December 5, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
• "Trash To Treasure: Web Site Serves As Junk Emporium". KETV 7 (Omaha). August 31, 2009. Retrieved December 5, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Wikipedia would be enhanced by this article's improvement, not its deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Northamerica1000. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Bit crap, but OK. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reliable sources cover it. Dream Focus 18:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article documents an interesting, but defunct organisation, and there are sufficient inline citations of reliable sources. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2011 (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.