Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flooz.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 was Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flooz.com

spam. BBtec 02:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. I'm not sure how this could be spam, since it's a defunct company. Flooz.com was a competitor to PayPal and all the other online panyment companies in the late 90's when The Internet ws expected to reinvent currency. -- Mikeblas 02:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable and with a number of instances of verifiable independent coverage (for example, see here). Irongargoyle 04:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Important part of the history of the dot com bust and has independent coverage. ColourBurst 13:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have to agree with the other nominators. Flooz was right there at the beginning when they were starting to talk about micropayments as a legitimate internet commerce model. It ended up driving a lot of the discussion, as I remember. I think this article could use some attention by an expert in the subject, which I am not. Captainktainer * Talk 18:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per others, and there certianly is enough published on it such as [1], [2] and [3] found without even trying hard. Certainly passes WP:CORP -- Whpq 19:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 9 references at wired.com alone. studerby 23:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Gazpacho 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mikeblas. Spam is an interesting descriptor for a defunct company. RFerreira 06:57, 29 August 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.