Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abebooks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. NSR (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Badvertising. Nothing particularly worthy of a Wikipedia entry.-- GraemeL (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. thanks for the re-write. --GraemeL (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio from their website. Tagged and bagged. See WP:CP. -Splash 19:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently not copyvio. The author released it by email. check the history. My fault, I should have mentioned this in the initial AfD message. --GraemeL (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Untagged and debagged. My bad. -Splash 19:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep and cleanup a lot: If kept, this needs massive cleaning. I struggle to believe their claims: I'll bet good money that Amazon are bigger. Abebooks' Alexa rank is about 1800th, Amazon's is 13th. I don't like the tone of the article, or the linkspam all the way through it. As written this is pure promotion. I might even give it a go myself. -Splash 19:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deserves an article, but don't keep this one.It's one of the biggest names in the used-book market (along with eBay, Amazon, and Alibris) and gets 1,440,000 Google hits.But this article reads like an ad and is unacceptable for an encyclopedia.Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)- UPDATE Keep as rewritten. Original article was pretty bad though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:09, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The article needs a lot of cleaning up though, and fact-checking. KeithD (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've rewritten it, just keeping the encylopaedic content. The article still needs improvement, but it's better than it was. KeithD (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
but drastically rewrite.i agree with User:Starblind's statemetns, but not his conclusion. DES (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Now a clear keep. Rewrite has created a fine article. DES (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I just edit-conflicted on the rewrite! I expanded it a little. -Splash 19:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the rewrite. Meelar (talk) 20:12, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, notable business. Tone down the advert qualities. -- BD2412 talk 20:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as rewritten. Crypticfirefly 22:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the rewritten article. Mindmatrix 13:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Thanks, KeithD. Best used-book Web bookseller I know. (I used to like Bibliofind, but they folded). Amazon rarely has anything not listed in Abebooks and their prices are usually higher. I've probably bought twenty books from their network of booksellers. Very reliable. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable bookseller. Capitalistroadster 23:33, 4 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.