Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bechna.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus tending towards delete. bainer (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bechna.com

Prod was removed - my reason was advertising/nn website (ESkog)(Talk) 01:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep.This site is among the top 5 classifieds sites in India. Some of the others are portals that have classifieds in India like rediff.com, sulekha.com and timesclassifieds.com. It is in the top 50,000 ranking in Alexa and ranked 49th in the classifieds category by ranking.com Similar to craigslist and unlike the other classifieds sites in India, bechna is a pure classifieds site. Requesting the deleting msg be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluesargam (talk • contribs) 02:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. --TML1988 02:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a popular Indian website. Not an advertisement. How does a chinese high school student make a recommendation of deleting a website from India. What expertise do you have in the area TML1988?DVR2006 02:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but please remember to assume good faith. Your comment does not sound like you're assuming good faith with respect to me. --TML1988 04:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It's beyond WP:AGF, it's WP:DICK -- Samir (the scope) 07:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
TML, I apologize.DVR2006 00:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per others voting delete. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep if someone can expand it. The website is important but the article is substandard. Bayberrylane 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Important because...? Deizio 01:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Appreciate the factual correction but I still don't see any real notability in the article. Maybe a topic for a regional wiki. At time of posting, bechna.com is down, while bechna.ca is a very empty internet classified directory. Deizio 15:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Site is one of the most popular classifieds portals in India. No evidence it was down. The brand bechna in Canada is very new. In India however, if you look at the number of postings this year, it has more Classified postings than Craigslist and Rediff.com combined.DVR2006 01:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I trust you are comparing the numbers of items listed across the entire "Craigslist" network to the entire "Bechna" network, rather than just the Indian sub-pages? The latter comparison would be mistaken and irrelevant, as the Craigslist article refers to a large multi-country network of communities. If you are making a valid comparison, I would be very interested to see such a claim proved. Indeed, you talk about "evidence" (site was inaccessible at 15.40 UTC, but it's not important). There is no evidence that this topic is notable. If you have some you might want to put it on / link it to the article. A major English language media source featuring the service, for example. Bear in mind that a site displaying free classifieds such as "You need female escort in india call me" and "The free sports book" to web surfers in India might not be a topic suitable for the English Wikipedia, and you might have to deal with that. Please resist comparisons between sites as each AfD is considered on its own merits. I hope you would also agree that any page which serves only to publicize a website whose notability cannot be established should be deleted. And, editor-to-editor, I'd say this: You've already tested WP:AGF once, make sure you understand exactly what the determining criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia are before you push it any further. Deizio 01:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please tone it down. I apologized for my earlier WP:AGF. Yes the comparison I made was the popularity of craigslist in India compared to Bechna.com (obviously not the entire craigslist network). I am sorry but don't agree with you that this popular Indian site should be deleted. DVR2006 02:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Sulekha.com, Rediff.com and Craigslist are classifieds providers similar to bechna.com. Infact bechna.com in India is more popular than craigslist and rediff classifieds.DVR2006 05:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Alexa shows a 63,000 ranking by my check [1]. There are precious few non-press release Ghits of the 172 total[2]. Hasn't impressed me yet per WP:WEB -- Samir (the scope) 07:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bayberrylane. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep per Bayberrylane. Bucketsofg 15:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep notable. this appears to be a significant website in india. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Alexa rank is decidedly low, no evidence of satisfying WP:CORP OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per OhNoItsJamie Computerjoe's talk 20:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, looks like possibly notable in India. ProhibitOnions 20:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seems to be popular amongst Indians. -- 127.*.*.1 21:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, per Samir. --kingboyk 08:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, if you allow thism, any site gets an article. Newyorktimescrossword 09:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Samir and Ohnoitsjamie; does not seem notable enough, yet. No prejudice to recreate when it does definitively meet WP:WEB/WP:CORP (most search results at the moment seem to be advertising/press releases)... but WP:CHILL applies until then. --Kinu t/c 07:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Samir. Sandstein 10:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Samir. Cursive 20:48, 17 March 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.