Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majestic 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Majestic Search Engine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Spammy article on a community project of no objectively proven notability. Created and edited by apair of accounts that specialise in writing spammy articles on minor commercial entities, a lot of which get deleted. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  00:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  00:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete- With Google really dominating the search engine market over the past decade, there are only a handful of other search engines that have widespread use (or at least they did in the past). This one is clearly not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete- Yeah, sorry, but I'm inclined to agree with that. There are not enough non-primary references to justify keeping it (Not notable). &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  16:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete; I agree with and . The Queens Award Magazine prize seems the most notable secondary source mention, but not much information is given in the reference. As the article currently stands, this could be a web crawler developed as a class project - interesting for sure, but like  said, there's nothing to establish widespread use. Google search seems to bring up a lot of SEO spam - not seeing much useful.
 * I did do a Google Scholar search. Filtering through other uses of "Majestic-12", this patent and this paper (behind paywall) look like the best potential of a week keep argument... but someone would need to do the work to find more reputable references and explain notability. I'll stay with my delete vote unless persuaded otherwise. = paul2520 (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2017 (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.