Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuil

Cuil

Cuil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

violates WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM. the only notable thing cuil has done, to date, is release a press release making wild claims that were parroted on news sites and that then turned out not to be true. cuil had their 15 minutes of fame. if they somehow manage to become relevant, then yeah, they deserve a wikipedia article, but that has yet to happen Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, they're still getting coverage (and a canny scolding) by reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep You have to be kidding. Cuil was all over the news, so there's copious reliable sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe you should actually, oh, I dunno, read WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM. There are also copious reliable sources on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Patterson but that didn't help her stay around. To quote from the policy you've clearly not bothered to read, "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own.". Misterdiscreet (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

From WP:Company: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The article's cited references speak louder than. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOT#NEWS: Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own.. The WP:Company quote you provide uses the word generally as in there are conditions in which that quote doesn't apply. Situations like this - situations where that WP:Company quote would be in conflict with WP:NOT#NEWS Misterdiscreet (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep many reliable sources, bona fide search engine. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 13:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Tons of reliable sources, involvement of serious techie heavyweights -- and a major flop (so far). Absolutely keep this article. Barpoint (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Techie heavyweights like Anna Patterson and Tom Costello, both of whom had their wikipedia articles deleted? Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Had I seen the AfD for Patterson I would have asked for a keep. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep- This is in every sense of the word, WP:NOTABLE. Perhaps it's fame and hype is short lived, but it still operates, and it's sources are enough to ascertain notability. PerfectProposal 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Cuil is nothing but a media side-show. It is by far the worst website ever. There are NO favourable reviews of Cuil. In all probability, people visit Cuil only through Wikipedia. That would make Wikipedia a Cuil advertisement vehicle, which is against our policies. As noted in a recent Washington Post article (Is Cuil Killing the Internet?), Cuil has become the Internet's public enemy #1. Its notoriety keeps growing - why? - maybe partly because of the visibility given by sites like Wikipedia.Khichdi2008 (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The reasons you cite for deleting it (strongly worded articles and emotions) are actually reasons to Keep this article, and the claim that we're sending it all its traffic is ludicrous. WikiScrubber (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Reply: Why is the claim ludicrous? Let me explain; try to understand. People are NOT visiting Cuil for web-search. Since Cuil has now become a mockery, ridiculed and chastised by newspapers, magazines and even Wikipedia, people are going to Cuil for some "schaden-freude" fun, thinking: "What new snafu has this site now created?". For instance, Wikipedia says that porno was displayed beside Search results. So people are saying, let me check out the porno images next to a search for "nuclear scientist". My claim that sites like Wikipedia are sending it traffic for all the wrong reasons is legitimate. "Strong emotions" are definitely a reason to keep the article. Unanimous hatred and detestation is not. Next time you use smart-aleck words like "ludicrous", better explain yourself. As remarked elsewhere, it is a certainty that Cuil will not be deleted - I very well know that. I am just providing a counterpoint to the same monotonous "keep" argument that all you conformists are submitting. Khichdi2008 (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Reply: Your original claim (see above) was: "In all probability, people visit Cuil only through Wikipedia." That is indeed ludicrous; there have been literally hundreds of news articles about Cuil. Your greatly modified claim is that "sites like Wikipedia are sending it traffic for all the wrong reasons," which is both debatable and irrelevant. Barpoint (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Reply: OK, touche. I modified what I said earlier. Anyway, that's what I meant. To whit, instead of visiting Cuil to search for info, people go there to look for more snafus and joke material. And, that is what making the site notable in the first place. Anyway, this is WP:SNOW without a doubt. I was just presenting a contrasting point of view. Let the website stay. Let the Wikipedia article stay. After all, we all need laughing material and slapstick humour from time to time, and Cuil promises to keep us entertained for as long as it lasts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khichdi2008 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep as it is absolutely notable (if also notorious), and WP:SNOW btw. WikiScrubber (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW may be a reason to close early but it's not a reason to vote keep. Read Argumentum ad populum if you don't understand why Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Could someone please close this WP:SNOW? There is no way this discussion will end with a delete. I'd close it myself but I commented with a "keep" above. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Cuil is a business, plain and simple. If it is an active global corporation, then it needs to have a Wikipedia page. Plain and simple. Whether or not Cuil is a well-run or particularly outstanding company is irrelevant to having a page (Enron and WorldCom should have their pages removed if the company's business practices are criteria on keeping a Wikipedia page or not).137.28.221.211 (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Whatever you say, WP:MEATPUPPET Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Keep" it exists so it has an article. this simple. this is an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.57.93 (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "it exists so it has an article"? so you think everything should have an article, regardless of notability, verifiability, or any of the other basic tenants upon which wikipedia espouses? Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I visited the Wikipedia Cuil page (just now) to find out more about Cuil. Imagine that. I was hoping that the page would give an unbiased view of what Cuil is, what it isn't, and some factual criticisms of the engine, which, after all, is one of the things Wikipedia is all about. I was shocked to learn that this page was a candidate for deletion. Hence, my vote. Dr Smith (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)