Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpyFu


 * 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   no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 04:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

SpyFu

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. References given appear to be press releases (that do not count as reliable sources) or merely trivial coverage or mentions, which do not confer notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added some more in depth sources to the article. With regards to traffic, SpyFu ranks 2986, 4311, and 6352 on Alexa, Compete, and Quantcast resp. SpyFu also has 305k, 110k, and 5M indexed pages on Google, Bing, and Yahoo resp according to the web rank Firefox toolbar. Compare this to Adgooroo, which offers similar services and has an article: Alexa 45k, Compete 51k, Quantcast 209k; Google 160k, Bing 3.5k, Yahoo 1k.  CrizCraig (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * None of those confer notability. Having an Alexa ranking or pages indexed by search engines only indicates Search engine optimization or search engine marketing (SEM), not notability. Notablility is established by being  subject to "Significant coverage" by reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject. --Hu12 (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Google Books search link spoon-fed above finds far more than enough reliable sources to confer notability. I know this isn't really relevant to the discussion, but I must point out that the nominator, who seems to consider him/herself to be spamfighter general, has the intensely annoying habit of indiscrimately underlining, italicising and bolding words, which makes the nomination itself read like the sort of spam that we got years ago before the spammers realised that such formatting detracts from the message. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.