Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mugurdy 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mugurdy Search Engine

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

non notable search engine website. Johnfamson (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; it is as notable as - if not more than - a number of the search engines listed on Web_search_engine. The article is very toned down and neutral, and was created for inclusion on Web_search_engine as per EdJohnston (talk)'s comments. Plenderj (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. We need third-party, published, reliable sources. Can you give a link to the comments you are talking about? Tim Song (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Regarding the comments, see the history page for Web search engine 19:44, 17 September 2009 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) (19,656 bytes) (Rm Mugurdy. Please create a Wikipedia article on this product before adding an entry for it here) (undo). Regarding third party sources, there have been some articles written in Irish print media e.g. Half page Irish Examiner 4th of September Page 27, The Sunday Business Post, The Sunday Times. We are making these available online as we speak and these will be cited in the article presently Plenderj (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am adding the references to print media now on Mugurdy Search Engine Plenderj (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Relisted for final time in order to achieve consensus. JForget 22:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article on Silicon Republic appears to be a press release. Business and Leadership is a duplicate of the PR. There is one article that we might be able to use, but it indicates that it might actually get going. Engine is still in beta. I don't see any notability yet. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep The Sunday Business Post article seems usable, and together with the others indicates notability--but possibly we should userify it until the actual release? DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A userfy wouldn't be a bad idea, perhaps - but the SBP article you point out still outlines the fact that it's beta. That's where I go delete here, DGG. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can scan the printed newspaper articles in question, but don't know if I'd be allowed to host them online... perhaps I could email them to someone to verify?--Plenderj (talk) 16:21, 5 October 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.