Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ServiceMagic

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 keep. Never in a million years speediable. I've discounted the vote-only comments, which leaves Bustter's "notable because of x ghits" versus Dlyons's "not notable because of y ghits". I did some Googling myself, and no matter how I narrowed it down, there were always several hundred thousand hits there (the 32m figure is optimistic; while the early results tend to be relevant, not all are). That gets rid of the "only 60 distinct ghits" ... which leaves ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ServiceMagic

advertising, link to commercial site, Wikipedia is not the Yellow pages, copyright issue for logo KenWalker | Talk 04:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete should have speedied. Rangek 04:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Michael 06:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Significant as it is its industry pioneer and leader, and a part of the internet's largest conglomerate IAC. To delete would create a pointless stub from the IAC page. DanKai 00:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete same as the housepaintingestimates.com site, but SM appears to be less of industry leader and more general. No real value other than advertisement Jrozsa 13:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep fyi, Companies are in discussion for speedy, not yet ratified. I see no policy whereby this should be deleted. The text is merely descriptive of the service, no hyperbole or sales talk that I can see, so not a "blatant" ad. The standard "smaall companies are not notable" doesn't apply here -- 32 million ghits. Google search is not itself an accepted measure, but the high numbers are due to this company's many locations. I can imagine someone finding the entry useful. I can't imagine any harm from its presence. so, keep. Bustter 10:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Logo can be used under fair use. Not valid reason to delete.
• Delete 60 Ghits suggests to me that it must miss WP:CORP. Dlyons493 Talk 12:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment 62 distinct Ghits does not suggest much in the way of notability. Closing admin might also note limited edit history of some contributors to the discussion. Dlyons493 Talk 11:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Dlyons493 BlueValour 04:23, 13 August 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.