Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cdghost

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 of the debate was delete.  Grue  18:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cdghost

Most likely autobiographical, and non-notable. Gets 955 google hits. Interiot 19:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems like vanity and non-notable. On a side note... it google really a good way to measure an articles worthiness in terms of AfD? Deskana 19:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a good way per-se. The best way is for someone who is familiar enough with the material to not just be making a "I've never heard of this" assessment, yet is detached enough to make an honest judgement. In lieu of someone like that who can make an authoritate assessment, it's better than simply saying "I've never heard of it before". *shrug* --Interiot 20:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. There are at least two problems with google hits: link exchange and the presence of unrelated topic. In this case, a search for " cdghost -site:diaryland.com" (pages mentioning cdghost but not on the site diaryland.com) gives 700 hits, but most seem to be related to Net CD Ghost V5.0 - Multimedia network virtual CD cabinet. A search for "link:cdghost.diaryland.com" (links to the site) gives 1 hit. As Interiot correctly pointed out, the opinion of an expert would be the best thing. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, the best way is to not count hits at all, but instead to read what the Google Web search turns up, and look to see whether anyone else, apart from its own author, has written about this journal. Multiple published works about the subject from sources that are independent of the subject itself are a clear indicator of notability, as they demonstrate that other people have found the subject notable enough that they have gone to the effort of writing and publishing stuff of their own about it. No experts and their opinions are required for this method. Uncle G 00:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Uncle G is correct - in part. He is correct in saying that other people having written about the journal is more relevant than the number hits. However, if there are basically no links to the journal site (besides those from the same site), it is probably safe to assume that the journal is not notable (not vice versa; I think this is his point). I assume that Uncle G is only proposing "this method" for articles on web sites/blogs/journals and similar things. If he is proposing to use it in general, I strongly disagree with him: there are some notable topics that are not covered well on the Internet (I remember a past AfD about a town in India with a population of over 100.000 and with a little web coverage). I am saying this because the original question was about using Google in general, not in particular for this kind of articles. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 11:26, 15 November 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.