Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USniff

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. JForget 01:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USniff

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

Non-notable website that has made no impact on it's field. I can find one newsarticle from 2008 announcing this site, but other than that I suspect this wiki is being used solely as an advertisement. Renox (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as per nom. Codf1977 (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a speedy deletion candidate per G11 but not a notable search engine. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like spam to me. USniff gives priority to a bunch of paid-subscriber-only websites (cineble, filmlush, flixaddict, itshd, pushplay & reelhd) that look the same to me and all the ones I checked use a whois privacy service (USniff uses same whois privacy service as most of ones I listed). --EarthFurst (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Every engine provides paid-subscriber links, so that should not be detrimental to USniff. In the same vein, the implication that domain registry privacy services are a negative feature is incorrect. In fact, PushPlay, reelhd, cineble, filmlush, flixaddict, itshd are all partnered with film studios and are therefore feeding revenue into the industry. Based on its Alexa growth over the last 7 months, USniff has grown 500% in that period. It is also listed in the yahoo directory. As for the engine itself, it is one of the leading AJAX-based engines. As noted above regarding significant coverage, that is the nature of the niche, there is not significant coverage on many major engines, more often than not there are simply primarily reports from statistical sites. I would suggest not deleting this entry and allowing USniff to prove it's continuing growth pattern. --Dannyplus (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2010 (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.