Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zillow

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. Mailer Diablo 07:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zillow

The submitter writes, "This company was launched this week so not much info on it yet although it's been on the news. Hopefully as time goes by more info can be added." I hereby ask the community. Do we let it sit and wait?-- Perfecto 06:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Let's recreate this one after it gets some business going Ruby 07:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I created the article so obviously I have a vested interest. There are many stubs created which allow for growth. Why not this one? This isn't some kind of hole in the wall business. News of the site has already expanded rapidly and the launch of it was among the most anticipated in both the .com industry and in real estate. There are over 218,000 google hits as well 112 news articles on google alone. I'm sure there will be plenty of info to form the basis of a good article (i.e. sections on how it revolutionized the real estate industry, controveries etc.) --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've taken the liberty of expanding the stub with new sections. Perhaps I shouldn't have used such a detailed edit summary in the beginning? But I still don't understand the main argument for this AfD. Letting a stub "sit and wait" has never been a true basis of AfD, lest it was not notable. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per WP:WEB and WP:CORP. 112 Google News stories [1] means that there is plenty of verifiable material about this company/web venture. Capitalistroadster 08:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable company. --Terence Ong 09:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable. Adrian Lamo ·· 10:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Startup was, for example considered notable event by NYTimes (front-business-page writeup/featurebox, I believe). Despite the standard "What? Me research?" nomination comments, the company did not just start this week. Instead, its website went live this week; this business has a lengthy and well-documented history. Worst Afd nomination since Ted Sizer. Monicasdude 14:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep generating enough buzz to merit a mention. Article could be beefed up.Kuru 15:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per traffic rankings and news coverage. --Gnu32 21:33, 16 February 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.