Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Play.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 keep but remove ad tone. - Liberatore(T) 19:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Play.com

  • Delete. Advertisement/vanity (WP:SPAM). Also, is it notable? (WP:N) (Boborok 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC))
  • Keep The article needs work, but Alexa ranks the site at 1,100 and lists 428 sites that link to play.com [1]. That's more than enough for me. -- Kicking222 17:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, Alexa also ranks play.com eighth among all sites for shopping for entertainment, only behind your amazons and netflixes and whatnot [2]. So yeah, there's tons of notability here. -- Kicking222 17:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've never heard of it (I go to Amazon.co.uk for my British CDs and things), but the Alexa rank is fairly impressive and it has a long history for a dot-com. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean-up. Very notable in the UK as one of the main competitors to Amazon. Shocking customer service, almost as bad as Amazon's, but that's no reason to delete. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 19:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but change the advertisement tone, make it neutral. It's notable, but page reads like vanity. Kr0nnik 21:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I personally buy stuff from them all the time, and so do many, many others I know of. It's certainly a notable site, and not least so because it's currently getting a lot of flak from the British powers that be who're up in arms about its VAT-exempt status granted by its location in the Jersey islands -- they claim that it gives Play an unfair competetive edge over other British businesses that have to pay the VAT. There was just an article about it in... uh, crap, I just can't remember which European electronic gaming industry magazine it was, but point is, it's definitely notable enough because of its size, popularity and status. -- Captain Disdain 22:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "...in the Jersey islands"? Grutness...wha? 00:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah. I thought you probably meant Jersey, as opposed, say, to the Isle of Wight islands, the England countries, or somewhere else in the Europe continents. :) Grutness...wha? 05:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, right, right. I didn't even notice that I went plural there; to be honest, I thought you were about to point out that New Jersey is not an island, or say something else as, uh, characteristic of random encounters in the Internet as that... =) My bad! -- Captain Disdain 23:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • my fault for being sarky (pun intended ;) Grutness...wha? 01:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. You will find that Boborak is looking at any edits I have made, and is marking the whole article for deletion. Check out his and mine user contributions. How he can think to mark this article as AFD is beyond me - and all of you from current voting!--Toph3r 23:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Full rewrite, however. -- ReyBrujo 04:03, 3 May 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.