Talk:Advanced Searchbar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Written like an advertisement 2 Notability 3 Download sites 4 Feature list

[edit] Written like an advertisement

Why would this be considered an advertisement? There are articles about different software products even toolbars. This is a popular toolbar as well and has been written up in various computer magazines and even in newsweek - http://www.advancedsearchbar.com/newsweek1.html

Then work those writeups into the article. Lose the long features list. And do it quickly before another admin comes along and deletes the article. --Richard 07:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Live_Toolbar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexa_Toolbar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_Toolbar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IE_Developer_Toolbar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0_Toolbar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo%21_Toolbar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RankQuest_SEO_Toolbar

Also it is not written up like an ad, it is direct and to the point about the product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry.odea (talk • contribs) 07:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it most definitely is written up by an ad. "You get the Google toobar and you can only search Google. You get the Yahoo! toolbar and you can only search Yahoo. ... [but] with the Advanced Searchbar™ you can search numerous search engines, over 100! ... -- simxp (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

How is that an ad, did I say that it is better than Google or Yahoo!? Just stating a fact most toolbars have just their search engine to search from their toolbar. Google and Yahoo! are the most common so I used them as examples. Not written up like an ad.Gerry.odea 16:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

It is notable because it has more features than Google, Yahoo! and MSN toolbars which are all listed on Wikipedia. Just because it is not as popular as those billion dollar companies does not mean that it is not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry.odea (talk • contribs) 13:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of features does not imply notability. See WP:NOTABLE. -- simxp (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You are only notable if you have a billion dollar company with a multi-million dollar advertising budget? Stumbleupon toolbar is notable? Mapquest Toolbar is notable? AOL Toolbar is notable? RankQuest SEO Toolbar?Gerry.odea 16:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with being a billion dollar company, although, obviously, that will make it much more likely that you are notable. Why? Because A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As I said on your talk page. See WP:NOTABILITY. -- simxp (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Being mentioned in PC Magazine, PC World, Smart Computing, Computer Power User and NewsWeek, does not make it notable? Would I need to be on the front page of the New York Times? Gerry.odea 16:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeh. That's the only thing that's saving this article from deletion. Please provide those citations. --Richard 16:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now provided those citations under references. Gerry.odea 17:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Due to those links, and the recent clean-up of the article (list of features removed, etc.), I've withdrawn my speedy deletion request and removed the templates. It's still not a very good article, though: try and integrate the links and the reasons why it is notable into the text, for example using <ref>{{cite web ...}}</ref> tags and putting <references /> at the bottom, rather than just listing the reviews and mentions at the bottom without refering to them in the text. -- simxp (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Download sites

Why would the listing to download.com, tucows.com, and PC World be removed when the same is listed for the Avant Browser? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry.odea (talk • contribs) 13:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this; they have now been removed from the AvantBrowser article. -- simxp (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough Gerry.odea 16:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feature list

Why would the features be removed when the same is listed for the Google Toolbar? Wouldn't you want to inform users of what features a software product has? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_toolbar#Features —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry.odea (talk • contribs) 13:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not to the level of detail provided in this article or the Google toolbar article. Both feature lists should be removed. A short prose summary of key feature sets might be acceptable. --Richard 16:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'm summarize them, but hopefully that will apply to Google Gerry.odea 16:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It does now. --Richard 17:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

But now the Google toolbar description is almost empty. Shouldn't it have some information? Isn't Wikipedia about providing information, has it gotten so strigent that you can't write anything without someone thinking it's an ad? Am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry.odea (talk • contribs) 17:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)