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 on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 03:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LowerMyBills.com[edit]

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

Contested recreated article that had been speedied yesterday. Original content of this recreation was vandalism, since replaced with the actual content by the author. Author's contesting statement suggests that much of what will to come will be original research. No sources beyond the site itself. DarkAudit 18:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Author's contesting statement suggests that much of what will to come will be original research." This is untrue, and nothing to this effect has been stated. There is nothing more to come on my part, as I'm not all that knowledgeable about the site, which leads to "No sources beyond the site itself." That's why it's a stub. - MSTCrow 18:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was how I interpreted 'empirical research'. If the sources of the research come from other sources that are reliable and verifiable, then I have no problem with it. Apologies if there was any misunderstanding there. DarkAudit 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There, I'm not the only one that thinks the ads are totally off the wall. So does the NYT. Linked in article, probably needs a notes section. - MSTCrow 18:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep changed my mind again. well sourced sounds good to me. --CyclePat2 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC) keep: (changed my mind... firefox was just acting up on me! holy meuh! I hardly have time to correct my comment and I'm getting 300 responses. wow! someone cares about this article.) I'll add the endnotes to help out. delete: link at bottom doesn't work and jams up my firefox. Possible spam. No matter the case, I'm not going to bother checking more than that and believe this should be deleted because of 1) self-promotion and 2) lack of proper reference. adieu. --CyclePat2 18:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC) --CyclePat2 19:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment NYT article is definitely an acceptable source per outside coverage per WP:WEB. DarkAudit 18:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It does work, with FF (I'm using FF 2.0.0.3). Your install could be corrupted. I don't see how it could be self-promotion. I don't work for Experian, and I hate LowerMyBills.com, for their screwed up ads littering the internet. A corporate website for the article entity in question and the NYT are generally accepted references. - MSTCrow 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The company has ample reliable and verifiable coverage to fulfill the WP:CORP standards, including the abovementioned NYTimes article which is entirely about the company's advertising strategy. Alansohn 19:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn Fair enough. Article went from a Speedy to a Keep in a few hours. I call that a good day's editing. :) DarkAudit 20:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• C: pn: I think we should close this one up! CyclePat 02:01, 17 May 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.