Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Weinberg


 * 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. Though I found outside sources that talk about Weinberg, they focus on his product, not him (USA Today, MIT, TechCrunch). This doesn't qualify him for a separate article under notability policy. As for information to merge, it appears that everything in this article exists in the Duck Duck Go article. Any questions about this AFD may be directed to my talk page. m.o.p 15:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Gabriel Weinberg

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete Merge by nominator. Seems like a normal entrepreneur. Nothing seems to set him apart from the others. Not really that notable. Tens of millions, alas, is small money nowdays. Weakly cited and not too credibly either. It appears that his product is notable. Merge to Duck Duck Go per WP:BIO1E. Student7 (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I like Christopher Columbus because he discovered that the Earth was round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddonald99 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. Its easy to find the two articles if you use DuckDuckGo's !bang feature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddonald99 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Gabriel Weinberg is a very important entrepeneur, who created the worlds greatest search engine, but if you would like to be tracked by Google that's fine with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddonald99 (talk • contribs) — Ddonald99 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. "World's greatest?" Where does this stand on Alexa? I got down to the #120 and got tired of paging. Did I miss it? Student7 (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since you have only contributed material in support of Gabriel Weinberg, or vandalizing my site, you wouldn't happen to be related to, or actually the subject in this case would you? Perfectly legal to vote BTW, but not the best person to be writing an article on the subject. Student7 (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment-1st ammendment, freedom of speech. you can't deny the constitution!
 * Keep - Gabriel Weinburg has received a fair bit of attention due to his projects, including the DuckDuckGo search engine (which has been mentioned by the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times). 82.132.210.239 (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — 82.132.210.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Mentioned? Not in article anyplace. The only article quoted there is a website constructed by the subject. This is not considered WP:RELY for this purpose. Student7 (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. See this Wall Street Journal article, and this New York Times article. Oh, and remember all those email you got from Names Database, Gabriel Weinberg created it.
 * Comment. As this is your only contribution to Wikipedia so far, can we assume that you were conscripted by Ddonald99 to vote in favor of retention? That is contrary to Wikipedia policy. I'm sure you did not know that, but it is. Student7 (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into Duck Duck Go, insufficient available references to justify at stand-alone biography article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia didn't become the largest encyclopedia ever by deleting pages that are about something that is "Not that notable." First of all, his company, DuckDuckGo, is very notable. And now you'll say "but he isn't", well most people don't know who Larry Page and Sergey Brin are. They created, possibly the most notable website on the planet. If you delete this page Gabriel Weinberg may never become notable.--Ddonald99 (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I suggest you refer to policy on notability as your perspective is different. Also Wikipedia is not a democracy, so your voting a second time and randomly adding "P.S"s might be better served by bearing the burden of the author and addressing the concerns on this page and enhancing the article with the reliable sources Cheers. Bagumba (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I dont see point of merging until a source other than a self-published website is added to the content. Bagumba (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p  07:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete A self published reference (which is only two sentences long) is not enough for notability. The two articles cited by User talk:Ddonald99 give only a passing mention to him.  They are fully about the search engine and not the person.  They definitely don't constitute in-depth coverage.  The search engine may be notable, but notability is not inherited. Ravendrop 07:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - The New York Times article does not even mention Weinberg, and in the WSJ article he is speaking about the company mostly. All that has been demonstrated that is verifiable from a non-self published source is that Weinberg is an entrepreneur solely running a notable company, and that is from only one source.  This is not notable at this time. Bagumba (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge any usable content into the article on the above-mentioned "world's greatest search engine" that I've never heard of and delete. My bias, however, is towards outright deletion, as I don't really see much usable content in this article. It's plainly non-notable. Existing and aforementioned sources do not cover the subject of this article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  08:45, 10 February 2011 (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.