Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Search Engine Statistics


 * 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.. There may be better ways of organizing this information within one of the existing search engine articles, but not in this format. Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Web Search Engine Statistics

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I am not convinced that Wikipedia is the right place for this information. It doesn't appear to be an encyclopedia article, nor can I see any probability of its developing into an encyclopedia article. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Search engine... maybe. You're right that this is not an encyclopedia article, but it's near impossible to justify throwing out information people could realistically be looking for.  I don't know i kan reed 00:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Near impossible to justify"? Please read: WP:NOT. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  21:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep see a high probability of article being developed. --Brewcrewer 00:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And what form possibly could such an article take? Can you even finish the sentence "Web Search Engine Statistics are..." with simply rearranging the words of the title? --Calton | Talk 12:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep "Market share" is relevant in the study of competition among businesses. This could use some rearranging, however.  At the moment, the intent seems to be to make tables for every month beginning in May 2007 (June and July were added).  There are more efficient ways to sum up this type of comparative data. Mandsford 03:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per WP:NOT. A collection of statistics is not an appropriate encyclopedia article; this lacks context and is merely a recreation of external research. (I wonder if simply recreating the same tables from the original press releases, without any analysis or interpretation, might even be a copyvio of Nielsen//NetRatings - anyone know?) The sources this relies on can be linked to from within the relevant texts. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  03:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with article on search engine optimization. Heathspic 12:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Maybe Wikisource could use it -- doubtful -- but it doesn't belong here. No merge. --Calton | Talk 12:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Not an encyclopedia article, so no worth to stay here. --Angelo (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2007 (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.