Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frugalytics


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Frugalytics

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable search engine. Haakon (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, non-notable indeed. JBsupreme (talk) 08:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the search engine is notable. While the service is still young, Frugalytics has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary reliable and independent sources. An example would be one of the leading BlackBerry related publications BlackBerry Sync - an article which was also re-published by Business Week. http://blackberrysync.com/2009/05/get-the-best-price-in-shopping-with-free-frugalytics-v10-for-your-blackberry/ The service has also been featured on the TechCrunch network of publications.  Mobile search & discovery is a rapidly evolving industry. Because of this speed of innovation, over bearing attention on the product pages of large corporations like Google would provide readers with a myopic view of the industry. Because of the above reasons, I believe the article should be kept. Searchmaven (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. To address Searchmaven above (who, by the way, is the sole contributor of the article, and whose commentary perks the WP:COI flags for me), there is no demonstration of notability.  Also, the BB Sync article is but one review, and reprint (i.e., duplication) of this article in Business Week does not connote notability.  Forgive me for being about as subtle and gentle as a tornado, but buzzwords don't help the fact that there is an observable dearth of demonstrated notability.  I see many places that offer it for download and plenty of blogs.  I see some reviews, but the scope strikes me as narrow.  To be honest, it's difficult to get software into here - it truly has to pass WP:CORP, which, since the closure of the old software notability guidelines, is the correct guideline for software notability.  If you want to change my mind, follow the guidelines there, as well as here and here. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 03:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't use any buzzwords. Searchmaven (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No intersections from independent reliable secondary sources. The only independent source is a blog, which is not a reliable one. Anyway, even if it were reliable source, it would be necessary more independent sources per WP:NPOV. Algébrico (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep For the simple reason that I'm really annoyed about the fact that I take my time to try and create interesting articles in a field where I am an expert and you guys keep deleting them for lack of notability. My article Articles for deletion/AskWiki was deleted when this was a joint venture that included a signed agreement with WikiMedia and the search engine was featured by WIRED magazine! Searchmaven (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're concerned about the article being possibly deleted, please remember that this is not a vote, this is a consensus, and that we're going on the merits on the article. If you don't want it to be deleted then I recommend fixing it.  With this, I now see COI - not a good thing. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT; and second !vote stricken --Cyber cobra (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2009 (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.