Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FactBites (2nd nomination)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus with a vote of 6 delete, 4 keep. FCYTravis 23:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FactBites

"Search engine/encyclopedia hybrid" founded in 2005. Alexa rank of 21,000. For comparison, answers.com is ranked 337, Google ranks 3, Yahoo ranks 1, and Altavista ranks 136, and Lycos ranks 103. Result of the previous VfD was 3 delete, 1 keep: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/FactBites --Carnildo 04:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Chairboy 04:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. if they specialize in excluding spam, then why are they posting this? Nateji77 05:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, any search engine which gets media coverage is notable in its field, comparing them with Google is unfair. Wikipedia has space for more than 21,000 articles. Kappa 10:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That's why I included comparisons to answers.com and Lycos. As another comparison, the meta-search-engine dogpile.com ranks 669. --Carnildo 18:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and if they're ever notable, bring 'em back. But they're not.JDoorjam 16:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advert, not notable - Should have been deleted with first VfD's 75% delete vote. - Tεxτurε 23:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just to make things clear, by nominating, I think this article should be deleted. --Carnildo 00:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Can't think of any good reasons to delete neutral and verifiable articles. I think BusinessWeek Online's comments trump fripperies like Alexa ,for a search engine that is still in beta. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've never heard Alexa called a fripperie before... - Tεxτurε 14:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That's what it is when considered as a judge of the quality of a website. It only judges the popularity. I've seen people seriously argue to delete a website containing unique folk archives simply because, being a library website, it had an extremely low alexa ranking. Here, on the other hand, there is at least arguably a case for looking at Alexa stats. However it's still predicated on the idea, which I reject utterly, that we should only write about high traffic sites. Wikipedia writes about what wikipedia wants to write about, we're all volunteers. The quality of this article is good, it gives verifiable references and it's neutral. It's about a resource that can be of interest and that has been written about. Therefore there is no need to delete it; it isn't damaging Wikipedia, nor is it ever likely to do so. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's an informative article. WP:NOT#PAPER, slap the vfd back on if the company goes bust without making an impact. --zippedmartin 17:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I see no reason to delete this article. JamesBurns 03:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.