Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReturnPath

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 of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ReturnPath

Delete per WP:WEB and WP:VSCA. Alexa rank is 35,851. Royboycrashfan 00:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable website --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 00:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Gwernol 01:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn website Where ^(talk) 01:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Icarus 07:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn website. --Terence Ong 10:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite Return Path is notable, though the article is currently poorly written. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Per Swatjester. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Swatjester. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Swatjester. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As written now I can not tell if it should be deleted or just rewritten. If you want to rewrite it later, go ahead. For now, delete Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 23:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Could someone add verifiable sources that show ReturnPath's notability - preferably to the article? Please don't take this comment to imply critisism. I'd be happy to change my mind on this, I'm just looking for evidence of notability before I switch to keep. Thanks, Gwernol 00:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand There are 135,000 Google hits. That's six figures! Need I say more? --Shultz IV 05:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment do keep in mind that many of those hits don't have anything to do with this website, just because a site uses a common word doesn't make it notable as it turns up many google hits. Boneyard 08:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. nn site. Eusebeus 12:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure advertisement. Johno000 13:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability, advertisement. Imarek 23:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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.