Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Search Engine Watch (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Search Engine Watch
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Sources are very thin, mostly being tangential mentions or PR. No other sourcing found. Last AFD was in 2007 and kept mostly through invalid arguments like WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Lot's of Wikipedia articles mention Search Engine Watch. list Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Which has literally nothing to do with notability. Just because a lot of articles reference it doesn't make it notable. There are lots of websites that are reputable sources yet don't have their own Wikipedia article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Nothing significant about this watch. Knud Truelsen (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Danny Sullivan (technologist) where the site is properly mentioned. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 02:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  This is a 393-word review of Search Engine Watch. The review notes: "Search Engine Watch was launched in June 1997, acquired by Mecklermedia later that year (though Sullivan retains all editorial control), and has gained acclaim as an important resource for Web site developers and Internet searchers--two categories in which many librarians currently find themselves. The bulk of the information is contained in four broad sections: Webmaster's Guide to Search Engines; Search Engine Facts and Fun; Search Engine Status Reports; and Search Engine Resources. A fifth section, The Search Engine Report, is also offered as a free, monthly e-newsletter, which covers developments with search engines and alerts subscribers to any changes to the Web site." The review further notes: "The immediate audience for Search Engine Watch--serious searchers and Webmasters--may not include all library patrons; however, it is an invaluable tool for librarians trying to keep up with the rapid development and fluctuation of Internet search tools."  This is a 626-word review of Search Engine Watch. The review notes: "Search Engine Watch (http://searchenginewatch.com) is the first place to go for organized, up-to-date information on WWW search engines. Coverage is extensive and the site appears to be updated frequently by its sponsor Danny Sullivan." The review further notes: "I had a few quibbles with Sullivan's explanations of search engine technology, and the site could use the services of a good proofreader or at least a spellchecker, but this failing doesn't interfere with the inherent value of the information. Search Engine Watch is a new and promising collection of up-to-date information on any aspect of WWW search engines, important for Web developers and searchers. I've bookmarked it."  This is a 330-word review of Search Engine Watch. The review notes: "Danny Sullivan's Search Engine Watch is part of the collection of Web sites under the Internet.com umbrella. The site's main attractions are a Webmaster's Guide to Search Engines, Search Engine Facts and Fun, Search Engine Status Reports, and Search Engine Resources. Highlighting Sullivan's commentary is a generous supply of tables, screen shots, bar charts, and graphs." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Search Engine Watch to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC) </ul>
 * Keep Those in the previous AFD stated the article in USA Today confirmed notability, that reference in the article and looking over it I agree. They also mention the New York Times article, but its hidden behind a paywall.  Conard has found additional coverage of it.  This website was and perhaps still is considered notable by people in the industry as the USA Today article starts off mentioning: Google's Matt Cutts considers Danny Sullivan's Search Engine Watch website "must reading." To Yahoo's Tim Mayer, it's simply the "most authoritative source on search."   D r e a m Focus  15:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard. The site was also profiled in Search Engine Visibility (ISBN 9780735712560), Search Engine Optimization For Dummies (ISBN 9780470392768), and was covered by the Scout Report on at least two occasions. - Eureka Lott 15:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard... — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 20:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.