Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scroogle (2nd nomination)
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kendrick7 (talk | contribs) at 11:30, 22 November 2009 (Undid revision 326878670 by Alison (talk) rvt pointless blanking prior to DRV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
- 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 delete. As always, feel free to query me on my talk page for an expanded rationale. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC) See expanded rationale here. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Scroogle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. While I do find this web service interesting, I do not believe it is actually notable as defined by Wikipedia. The bulk of the sources are primary, and I have no idea what to make of WND. [1] JBsupreme (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Scroogle is certainly notable, IMO. I came to this article looking for info about this search tool when I saw the related Firefox add-on (22,200+ downloads to-date, ~1,200 this week). A quick web search shows that there has been a considerable discussion about it and its creator, Daniel Brandt, who is a critic of Google as well as Wikipedia. I too suspect the reliability of WND, but the references also include a story in The Boston Globe, a mainstream newspaper, which is further evidence of wider interest. That said, this article is far from thorough and objective. Instead of deleting it, it should perhaps be labeled as incomplete. --AslamKarachiwala (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC) — AslamKarachiwala (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep, per this discussion in CNET News, which is independent of the site concerned and in-depth enough to be more than a passing mention. Also mentioned, but in less depth, in this second story in the Boston Globe. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Sufficient references establish notability. The article provides information that is useful to Wikipedia's readers. —Finell 02:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Boston Globe mentions are passing at best, and one decent mention in CNET just doesn't scrape by notability standards in my book. GlassCobra 04:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree with GlassCobra. Sources suggest that any notability is very, very marginal. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Covered by reliable sources. Very minor topic but still notable by WP standards. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only passing mentions in reliable sources, mostly in relation to the topic of Google and data retention. A mention in Criticism of Google would be warranted. Brandon (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2009 (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.
