Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProCog

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 delete. Michig (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ProCog

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous Prod with rationale "No evidence that this new search engine has attained notability; only offered source is a lukewarm review." was removed by the article creator with the comment "Removed notice on notability. The site is continuing to gain traction and is unique in the search engine market - providing detailed algorithmic results for each query". Subsequent 2nd Prod was also removed (rightly in terms of process). I'm bringing this to AfD on a similar rationale to the original Prod notice: that there is insufficient reliable evidence that this start-up Beta has yet attained the WP:NSOFT notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This newly launched search engine does not meet the notability guidelines. Rotten regard 21:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a few businesses/products with this name, but the search engine doesn't have any significant coverage in reliable independent sources - just some blogs of dubious independence. Hence, not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This new website has been up for less than six weeks and, as I write this, it appears to be down. Article cites a blog and a non-reliable source of what may be a paid placement (I can't tell, one way or the other). If and when it does sufficiently "gain traction" to be notable, then let's have this article back. But for now, WP is not a PR outlet for startups. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2012 (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.