Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuil

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Black Kite (talk | contribs) at 00:24, 7 September 2008 (Closing debate, result was keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. Clearly enough secondary coverage to keep this. Black Kite 00:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Had I seen the AfD for Patterson I would have asked for a keep. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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)[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cuil&oldid=236758221"