Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forestle

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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forestle

Borderline advertising. WP:RS are lacking, and the sources that are there don't appear to meet the criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three reliable sources in the article more than suggests notability for this site. Clearly not advertising, as no claims are made for product superiority, etc. Not sure why nominator doesn't consider the sources adequate; WebProNews and ArsTechnica are well established web sites that are routinely considered reliable for articles of this type, while the 'netfordownload' site is a syndicated copy of a second story that originated from ArsTechnica ([1]), as is indicated on the page. It should probably be switched to point to the original source, but this doesn't really affect its reliability. JulesH (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This search engine drew attention when google dropped support for it: [2], [3], and that alone seems to make it notable, because that event, in addition to drawing media attention from all over the world (search in other languages and you'll find it!), is inherently interesting/notable. Cazort (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Forestle is referred to by several independent reliable sources that document: the international attention when google dropped from the partnership with Forestle and when Yahoo joined into partnership with Forestle; moreover, the uprising of Forestle and the impact of Forestle and green search sites on environmental issues are discussed widely. The article clearly is not 'borderline advertising', because the article and its references discuss counter-acting perspectives, including in particular the dispute between Forestle and Google. --Subwaynyc (talk)

Keep as seems notable anyway, even if standards should arguably be lower for non-profits. -- samj _in ^out 02:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- deleted 21 February on the German Wikipedia: de:Forestle --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I saw the Forestle entry on the German Wikipedia mid February, it was far shorter, less cited, and notability of Forestle was much less clearly presented than its entry on the English Wikipedia shows now. I would also like to remark that the total number of search events on Forestle.org again increased by 50% within the last three weeks! Moreover, it is a search site that does not just sell any product but allows searching the entire web, by everyone, for free, making it of far more general interest than many product web sites that are already considered notable... It might be that for some aspect of the Forestle entry one more reference should still be added (though I do not know where this might be required in the current version) but I see no reason for deletion. --Subwaynyc (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.