Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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)
- 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)
- 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. Khichdi2008 (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)