Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ixquick

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. This discussion was listed for 16 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Though an AFD tag for some reason was not placed on the article, the debate was sorted and was listed on the log for 13 days. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ixquick

Not notable and written like an ad. 120 million searches in five years, which amounts to less than 100,000 per day. Only other indication of notability is a "EuroPriSe" award, which doesn't seem to itself be notable (supranational government projects aren't automatically notable). May be salvageable if merged e.g. into an article about search privacy. Neon Merlin 15:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ascidian | talk-to-me 00:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion was not added to a log page but I've listed it now. (see discussion here). ascidian | talk-to-me 00:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A Forbes article devotes a few paragraphs to the site. The site is also discussed in a number of books ([1], [2], [3], etc). There's not really a huge amount to say about it, but I think it's barely notable enough. The current article doesn't seem too bad to me, at least in terms of tone. It would be nice to replace some of the refs from Ixquick itself. Zagalejo^^^ 05:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The first relist was 3 days after filing due to the AFD not being transcluded so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The article doesn't have an AFD banner. Pburka (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like above, I found [4] and [5]. I believe google scholar yields a few results too. ceranthor 23:13, 14 September 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.