Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surch


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 00:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Surch
Advertisement for a non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. Not that Alexa is an accurate reflection of notability, but since the article mentions it, the site only ranks 73,378 currently. Poking around the web, I found posts like this:, indicating that the site is brand new, and "still in testing" (in addition to the article itself which indicates a beta release in July). Other Ghits:. --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB and WP:V, and from the link the nom gave, there's a fair amount of crystal balling too. Additionally, there is only one external link to the site. --Wafulz 07:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Include The page has been completely changed and the issues that you have talked about are taken out. But im going to disagree. Alexa is a widely used tool on the net and a creditable reference. There are many pages on wikipedia that list alexa. in addition you are referring to googles backlinks but not taking into account that they update on a whim when they want and how they want.... pagerank has not updated in almost 4 months so that is a completely unfair bias. Did you check msn or yahoo? Surch's traffic is far beyond most sites so the suggestion that it’s unknown is simply not true. I understand the issues with the first article but they have been changed. In addition, surch's alexa rating of 73K is a 3 MONTH average... todays total was 32K and our page views per user was higher than googles. So while we are new and our userbase is not that of the big3 it is growing and our users are consistent. I hope this helps. --Surch 08:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Our articles are based upon secondary sources.  If there is no non-trivial source material on a company, produced by people other than the company, we cannot have an article.  If you wish to make a case for keeping the article please cite such sources. Uncle G 15:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Include I also disagree, this surch engine is a great surch engine and I have been thinking about submitting it onto wikipedia myself for some time now and I'm glad to see that someone actually has finally! The surch results are great and far exceed Google, Yahoo, and MSN! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.64.97.225 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 26 August 2006  (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advertising the great new web sites that editors have just discovered. It is an encyclopaedia.  If you wish to inform the world about a web site, write an article and have it published in a reputable computer magazine. Uncle G 15:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - NN article, WP:NOT crystal ball. Tokakeke 08:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How is that a crystal ball? your suggestions are without merit. Everything in there now is non-ad based and accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Surch (talk • contribs) 08:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with AbsolutDan. Right now, this fails WP:WEB as non notable. If it does continue to grow, as the article predicts, recreate. Until then, delete. Th ε Halo Θ 10:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Valrith 12:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article appears to be about the company behind the website and they, in no way, meet WP:CORP. Nuttah68 14:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Though the article does look somewhat better than it did when I first nominated it, it's still lacking sources. While I can appreciate that Surch might be a useful tool, unless there are reliable sources out there that review the site, or something else that makes the article meet WP:WEB/WP:CORP, the article cannot be included at this time. Additionally, I believe the editors above that refer to crystal-balling mean that a lot of the reasoning for inclusion of the article is based not on what the website/company has accomplished, but what it expects to -- in other words, that Surch isn't yet well-known, but will be. Let me state that although I still feel the article should be deleted at this time, I have no prejudice against recreation in the future if Surch turns out to be wildly successful and then meets criteria for inclusion (and I wish Surch well in this respect). --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: I understand but there are hundreds of thousands of sites listed on wikipedia that have nowhere near the audience that surch has. In fact our Alexa rating today was 18K... Again, 8.9 page views per user. Alexa IMO is creditable enough. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=surch.com&url=surch.com Please check todays totals then look at page views per user. Surch has not made in that page any reference to what it expects to do rather what it IS doing. I would suggest a site that gets well over a million uniques a day to be VERY well known. You make suggestion to "wildly successful" show me any site that is other than fortune 500's and then why dont you delete all the rest..that would leave wikipedia with say maybe a few thousand sites. --Surch 21:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - "I understand but there are hundreds of thousands of sites listed on wikipedia that have nowhere near the audience that surch has.": Then nominate them for deletion. "Alexa IMO is creditable enough. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=surch.com&url=surch.com" - It's not. Google, with terms "surch search engine" displays your site, and some review on 5 Star Affiliate marketing program. "You make suggestion to "wildly successful" show me any site that is other than fortune 500's and then why dont you delete all the rest..that would leave wikipedia with say maybe a few thousand sites." - Something Awful, FARK, Slashdot, Neopets, the list goes on and on. The page was created with the purpose of advertising. If and when the site is notable, put it back, add some sources, and maybe we'll go from there. Wooty 00:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Fair enough. I suppose you are, to a point, correct. I will repost when surch meets the standards of Wikipedia. Although Wooty, its funny that you only reference google. I think someone once said... "We are all nothing but a flock of sheep, a button collar starched and bleached." In addition...Who was it, the macintosh boys that were turned down for VC by some no-name banker? Hrm. Funny that. I suppose at this point I will ask that surch be deleted.


 * Comment There are problems with Google, sure, but at the moment it's the best way to determine notability, unless you've got a bunch of links from notable websites handy. I appreciate your understanding, and I wish your project well. Regards, Wooty 06:21, 27 August 2006 (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.