Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusionsearch (search engine)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fusionsearch (search engine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Metasearch engine. The little coverage this engine has received is in blogs; gnews doesn't turn up much (except for a blog entry.) I don't see this meeting the criteria of WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Prod declined. Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This search engine has not existed for very long either, you have to give it that. Not only is it the first search engine to merge Google, Bing, Yahoo and Wolfram Alpha with full AJAX support, but other search engines that have less features are listed on Wikipedia. Why does this one not have the permission to get listed? What is really so different? User:Mathiaslylo (talk) 12:28 PM, 31 August 2009 (UTC + 1) —Preceding undated comment added 10:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It's not a matter of permission, it's a matter of notability. Has Fusionsearch "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources"? The other metasearch engines with articles have. Fusionsearch is, as you say, new. If and when it does get enough coverage from those sources, the company would be notable enough for Wikipedia. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - looking over the references provided, I don't see the coverage needed to establish notability nor am I able to find it myself -- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While the argument that "there are other pages in Wikipedia with less notability" could be used, it is invalid, and I agree that the article here in question does not meet the criteria of WP:WEB. If the article sometime in the future, due to increased media coverage, does meet these criteria, then it can be remade. Until then: au revoir, Fusionsearch. Bobber0001 (talk) 13:14, 5 September 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.