- 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. (Non admin closure). —Qst 18:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Authorize.Net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
procedural nomination Deleted via WP:PROD 2006-03-19 when article resided at Authorize.net; deleted several times in the interim and finally re-nominated via PROD. 2006 PROD action was accompanied by the statement: "fails WP:CORP". Recent re-PROD came with the statement: "Seems to fail WP:CORP, at original name Authorize.net article has been deleted four times". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I'm only seeing 3 deletions (may be more under a variant of spelling), but it doesn't appear to be notable. - Rjd0060 04:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, did a Google search on this (Authorize net) found about 2M results including news.com, netcraft, zdnet, Monster, just to name a few. I think that should pass WP:WEB, WP:V, and WP:RS. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 23:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I did a osCommerce implementation last year and used the Authorize.Net gateway. I think it is the third or fourth biggest payment gateway in the world. It should not have been nominated. scope_creep (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Obvious candidate for inclusion to anyone familiar with the industry, if anything, this article should be expanded and updated. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I have rewritten this article to better reflect their status as a company in their industry. Considering they were just purchased for $565 million I'd say they are definitely worth inclusion.stymiee (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.