Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zanran (2nd 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Zanran
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

2nd AFD for this one. Was deleted last time. Search engine parked "on the cloud". Not notable, blogs for references. One patent from the UK, but that doesn't demonstrate or establish notability. The site might be interesting, but not interesting enough for reliable sources to cover it yet. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Note: Almost all editing by 86.44.31.213 consists of arguing passionately for "keep" in AfDs, including some where there is a clear and strong consensus to delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I had previously requested CSD for recreation of content deleted via AFD (CSD:G4) but the admin reviewed and found the content was different enough to exclude it from qualifying. I don't think it qualifies otherwise under speedy delete, else I would have done that.  Note that the article creator is an SPA with the same name as the search engine in both incarnations of this article. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep . Also, Search Engine Land, already in the article, was deemed a RS at Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization. The blogs aren't exactly doo-doo either. . 86.44.31.213 (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's something i've never seen before. A factually dubious ad hominem in which "almost all" and "some" are doing a lot of work. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not accurate - Search Engine Land was mentioned ONE time in a comment by ONE user, and reliability of the source wasn't at stake, so your claim is misleading. It is not on any list as a reliable source here.  It doesn't even pass the criteria or have its own page here on Wikipedia.  As for blogs, well, they are blogs and few pass the sniff test for RS, even if they are notable by themselves.  I will happily leave that to the closing admin to determine the reliability of those sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ten editors scrutinized the sources. SandyGeorgia explicitly called for the sourcing to be examined, & comments were requested at the RS noticeboard and elsewhere. This is all at the link you were given. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply - Did you even read the page you linked? SandyGeorgia OPPOSED in the discussion, because of the "failure to use reliable sources.  Webforums and blogs used as sources".  Another quote "but you may need others to confirm that the sources reflect industry-wide consensus and knowledge, since blogs are not peer-reviewed.".  Not that Sandy's opinion is the determiner here, but if you want to invite SandyGeorgia to participate in this discussion, I would feel safe with that.  SandyGeorgia never mentions SearchEngineLand specifically (in spite of your claims) in ANY comment whatsoever.  In the end, the article was promoted, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't based on the strength of the sources via "SearchEngineLand", but on the 56 other references that had already established "notability".  Notability wasn't the concern in that discussion as in this one, it was being considered for Featured Article. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * you don't seem to know what "SandyGeorgia explicitly called for the sourcing to be examined" means. If you like you can also see the abortive FAR. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – Significant coverage in reliable sources confers with this topic passing WP:GNG:
 * There's also a Christian Science Monitor blog article, but the source of the blog is not under the editorial control of CS Monitor. I'll post it here to let other users comment about it's status:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The PCworld.fr article is rather short (3 paragraphs), but obviously they are a reliable source.  The only one, which is odd since the engine doesn't support French....  The other is a blog, and the CSmonitor "article" is on their blog, with a guest blogger yet, would be ok as a passing reference but I think it is a bit weak to demonstrate notability.  That is the problem, all but one ref is a blog, and the one is a bit weak on it's own. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2012 (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.
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The PCworld.fr article is rather short (3 paragraphs), but obviously they are a reliable source.  The only one, which is odd since the engine doesn't support French....  The other is a blog, and the CSmonitor "article" is on their blog, with a guest blogger yet, would be ok as a passing reference but I think it is a bit weak to demonstrate notability.  That is the problem, all but one ref is a blog, and the one is a bit weak on it's own. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2012 (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.