Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BookFinder.com

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 keep . Mackensen (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BookFinder.com

advertisement, nn. Tychocat 14:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: it has a staggering 6.5 million Google hits, but only 63 distinct ones (they all come from bookinder.com and journal.bookfinder.com). So non notable according to Google... Fram 14:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Keep: site seems to be notable in its branche / niche, and has a lot of news reports and so on. Fram 14:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It has been reported before that the "distinct" hits returned by Google are only filtered from the first 1000 entries, so when the total is significantly larger, the distinct hits are not accurate. Fan1967 14:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that, thanks. Changed vote accordingly! Fram 14:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Page has been in place since 2003, and doesn't read like an advertisment to me. Quite useful info.--MichaelMaggs 15:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems to be mentioned on a decent enough number of independent external sites to pass WP:WEB
• Keep but clean up, as this article reads like an ad to me. The website is notable, though. --Coredesat talk 21:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep google searches have to be done carefully due to several companies with the same name across the world. It has a few reviews, including PCMag, and financial references when it was sold. I was convinced by the brief they submitted to the US Patent Office here.Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, easily meets standards. As an aside, one of the single most useful used book hunting tools on the web, I love it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:24, 28 June 2006 (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.