Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Search Engine Watch (2nd nomination)
- 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Search Engine Watch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Second nomination. Non-notable website, no independent sources, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 23:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Website has a ridiculous amount of coverage ranging from CNET to the NYT, if only someone would grab some of those for citations. --Dhartung | Talk 00:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, I don't see much significant coverage. Lots of press releases and minor blog mentions, but little major media articles. No doubt the company exists, and the original owner gets mentions in business rags, but it's not exactly Microsoft. Put up good references and I'll be convinced. MarkBul 00:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This isn't just a nothing website, but rather, one where the founder is quite widely cited, in books and other media. I think their awards are also fairly notable, since they receive some attention as well. I suggest tagging for cleanup. I expect this might be a bit hard since the people involved get quoted a lot, enough that I'd say that alone demonstrates notability. FrozenPurpleCube 00:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be worth considering this as a property of Mecklermedia as well, which I can find a lot more direct sources on. [1]. FrozenPurpleCube 00:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And hey, I found this page: [2] which has the following quotes: Google's Matt Cutts considers Danny Sullivan's Search Engine Watch website "must reading." To Yahoo's Tim Mayer, it's simply the "most authoritative source on search." Hmmm....I think that makes a pretty strong case for notability. FrozenPurpleCube 00:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be worth considering this as a property of Mecklermedia as well, which I can find a lot more direct sources on. [1]. FrozenPurpleCube 00:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep how specifically should we add the references? In a simple reference catagory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.241.245 (talk) 02:02, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
- KeepYou don't need to be Microsoft to get an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely those who want to keep this can come up with reliable sources? Corvus cornix 18:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely you can read the article I cited. Or is USAToday quoting two representatives from major search engine companies not a reliable source for some reason? FrozenPurpleCube 19:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely you can add the source to the article, which has been sourceless for two years now. Corvus cornix 20:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know that I want to, but I take it that you have no objections to the source? That it satisfies your concern as to reliable sources attesting to the notability of this site? FrozenPurpleCube 21:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If those who claim that the source is valid don't want to add it to the page, then just how sure are they of their claim that it's valid? Corvus cornix 21:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 100%? Speaking for myself, I am quite comfortable with the source, I just don't feel like bothering with editing the page. FrozenPurpleCube 22:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If those who claim that the source is valid don't want to add it to the page, then just how sure are they of their claim that it's valid? Corvus cornix 21:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know that I want to, but I take it that you have no objections to the source? That it satisfies your concern as to reliable sources attesting to the notability of this site? FrozenPurpleCube 21:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely you can add the source to the article, which has been sourceless for two years now. Corvus cornix 20:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It does seem odd to introduce sources into a discussion and not add them--it's at least as easy to add them as explain why you aren't. But the criterion for keeping an article is sourceable, whether or not it has been actually edited to show the sources. DGG (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, NYTimes coverage satisfies WP:WEB. Italiavivi 20:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, leading news site within the Internet Marketing space. If you do a few Google searches, you can find plenty of potential references. The standard is referenceable, not referenced. - Jehochman Talk 13:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - quite notable, as per NYT and USAToday refs confirm. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:30, 31 August 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.