Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Info.com (3rd 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Info.com

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

Does not meet GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since this has been kept twice before, there should be some explanation of what's changed since then. A couple of additional sources from 2004: Chicago Sun Times [1]; Chicago Tribune [2]. And FWIW, in my personal experience their annoying searchbox shows up everywhere. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", ie in-depth coverage of them rather than frequent appearances of their search box. I note the coverage in Chicago of their launch but I think we need a bit more than newspaper reprinting of launch press releases (no disrespect to Chicago papers intended!) Philafrenzy (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have an explanation of what's changed since the last two nominations? Unscintillating (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second keep appears to have been based on the first which was based on the addition of two very brief descriptions of what the site does. We need "significant coverage" that goes beyond noting that something exists and a few words about what it does. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While not great, the 2004 sources are significant coverage of what the search engine does, which is what the product here for this company is. It's not great or particularly useful coverage but this search engine itself has coverage. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve as this is a potential article. SwisterTwister talk 21:45, 7 February 2016 (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.