Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DisInformation (search engine)


 * 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   delete. sole creator's request Scott Mac 17:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

DisInformation (search engine)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article about a long-defunct search engine. If this wasn't so poorly written and full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH it might be worth merging with the existing Disinfo, which covers the same material. I originally redirected it, but the creator seems strongly resistant to the idea of merging. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously I am in Wikipedia COI territory here, but I have commented on pages like this before without being contested. To raise the first point of the search engine being defunct, to quote wikipedia word-for-word, "notability is not temporary" secondly to confront the idea that the article contains OR, the in-line citations provide information in their wording, such as that this search engine is alarmist, such that it deals with pop culture, such that it deals with religious zealotry, and such that it deals wiht popular culture, a niche audience, that it is disruptive in it's nature, etc. I have not copied the quotes word-for-word, but I'm somewhat experienced in editing articles to do with the digitized media, and did not wnat to violate copyright. 85% of that article is precise, and, to quote wikipedia again, wikipedia deals "with factual precision". Just becuase an article requires a miniature clean-up, it does not mean throwing out 85% of the content, just my 2 cents there, although obviously I am not allowed voting powers.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  --  Marcus   Qwertyus   23:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Disinfo (and/or Richard Metzger). There are a few third-party references here that give some indication of notability, but not enough to clearly justify a separate article here; the subject would be better handled by being cut down and merged to Disinfo, which appears to be the larger organisation behind it, or Richard Metzger who created it, both of which are notable. If better sources can be found, I'll change my mind, but as it is I don't think independent notability has been established here. Robofish (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've changed my mind please have it deleted thanks.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2010 (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.