Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scroogle (3rd nomination)

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 merge to Criticism of Google. Fairly even split of opinions, a merge will retain the information and search term without the stand alone page. J04n(talk page) 15:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scroogle

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

Deleted via an Afd discussion, it was apparently restored without a DRV or further discussion that I can find. Still not at all noteworthy for an article. Sources about Scroogle are lacking, with online The Register (who I understand does a lot of Wikipedia stuff and isn't really the most reliable source) being the primary reference. Should be a speedy as a repost, but it was contested. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I believe the original justifications for deletion still stand, and the subject is not notable enough to stand on its own as an article. Ducknish (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, What I found in a google search does not inspire a lot of confidence. It's even worse if it indeed has been created after being deleted.^King Jakob _C2 22:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Redirect/Merge to Criticism of Google. The citations presented in the article and in the previous AfDs suggest that Scroogle received a minor degree of press coverage (e.g. [1], [2],[3]). ~~Although much of the coverage is tangential, there is just enough notability for Scroogle to receive a mention, albeit not enough for it to be the subject of its own article.~~ Scroogle was developed as a reaction against Google, which Scroogle's creator believed was collecting too much information on its users. ~~Criticism of Google would be a logical destination to redirect and merge a summarized paragraph or two about Scroogle.~~ --Mike Agricola (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC) EDIT: After some consideration, I've changed my vote to "keep" on account of the additional news coverage I was able to uncover via Google News (see post below). At least a half dozen of these stories discuss Scroogle as their main theme, a fact which demonstrates that coverage in RS is more than incidental and the WP:GNG requirement is met. Moreover, I took a look at the previous AfD (2nd nomination) - and it was actually a close vote (four "keep" versus four "delete" votes). In the current AfD, at least twice as many RS have been presented compared to the last time around. It seems reasonable that the consensus would have swung towards "keep" in the last AfD had the same sources presented here been available for everyone's consideration back then. --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do any of Daniel Brandt's projects still have articles, other than this one? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so; even the page about Daniel Brandt was deleted years ago. I should also add that a search of the Google News archives (search query) produced several news stories featuring Scroogle, including [4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11]. The news stories in French, Dutch, German and Polish demonstrate that the site received a certain degree of international notability. It is my opinion that this coverage moves Scroogle a couple notches up the WP:GNG scale relative to my initial impression, but I admittedly don't have a good feel yet for the threshold of coverage needed for a website to be sufficiently notable to be featured in its own article. --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Save/Retain This article was created back in 2005 and appears to be the only source of historical information on the (now defunct) search engine service which had been available for nine years (2003 - 2012). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cphisher (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If Wikipedia is the only source of information on a topic, then it is probably not notable.^King Jakob _C2 18:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Save/Retain I was glad to find this article today, providing exactly the short encyclopedic description I was hoping for. From other sources I was getting only parts of the picture, often with significant bias. This article seems to me quite relevant in the context of Google-related privacy issues, a topic of mainstream interest. It makes sense to me that it has its own page, as this was an entity in itself with its own history and role played. I was not searching for general information on criticism of Google, so it doesn't make sense to me to move this there. All good encyclopedias include shorter entries, and this is a nice one. The following seem relevant: WP:DEFUNCTS (just because it is history is no reason to delete it), WP:TRIVCOV (the news coverage listed above is not trivial coverage), WP:IDONTKNOWIT (although you may have never heard of it, it was apparently used by hundreds of thousands of people and considered important enough to be covered in PC magazine and many other news outlets around the world (the article itself has additional links to such coverage)). The reasons given above for deletion are vague, except for referring to the "original" AFD discussion (the first being in 2006 (result:keep), the second (a bit hard to find) in 2009 (result:delete), the third (this one) in 2013) -- anyway, the main reasons for deletion in the 2009 discussion seemed to be the WP:TRIVCOV argument, but the many mainstream news sources listed above seem to show that since 2012 this argument is no longer valid. Is there any remaining argument for deletion? Matt Cook (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Save/RetainOn 27-dec-2011 Microsoft Registered scroogled.com with marketing set to turn the word scroogle into a verb. The history of this word is relevant.Tony Julian (talk) 4:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you know of any documented connection between scroogled.com and Daniel Brandt's search engine? As far as I am aware, Microsoft "scroogled" marketing campaign to promote Bing over Google and Brandt's Scroogle are entirely separate, except for the coincidence that both involve a variant of a "Scrooge" + "Google" pun. --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Marginal, but iI'm not sure we would be considering deletion if it wasn't for Brandt running it. The notability in any case has increased a little since 2009. This sort of weak notability can be interpreted either way,and when it's someone we do not like, we should go out of our way not to let it affect us, and the only way to be sure is to not delete the article. Those WPedians who have, unlike me, actually dealt with Brandt, may feel differently. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I had to look up Daniel Brandt after I saw someone post about him here, for what it's worth. Whoever he is and what his relationship to this site is, it had no bearing on my nomination. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More than adequate sourcing showing for a GNG pass. Note that Daniel Brandt is a prominent hardline Wikipedia critic and that probably explains much of the fuss over this topic over the years. Carrite (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A weak keep. It just scrapes by as notable and while the references remain valid I'm happy to err on the side of caution DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Criticism of Google; coverage in RS is only incidental. Miniapolis 13:56, 19 March 2013 (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.