Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bixee.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. W.marsh 16:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indian job search engine, founded this year in January, Alexa rank 54,496. The article was twice proposed for deletion (with the reason of not meeting WP:CORP or WP:WEB guidelines), and the notice was twice removed by an unregistered user (making this a contested proposed deletion). Procedural nomination - no vote. - Mike Rosoft 10:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails to assert notability. Feel free to speedy this when CSD A7 is expanded. MER-C 10:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Let me just mention here that Alexa numbers aren't representative enough for a country like India. Although I don't know what is the actual usage nos for this site, I don't think they have published any numbers yet. As far as I know Bixee is the first Web 2.0 startup of India and the first vertical search engine for India and thereby does deserve a mention here. They have been covered in Business Today and Business India, the two popular business magazines of India. Bixee is serving a good need as a job search engine product and India job seekers like me do use it on a regular basis.
- Unsigned vote/comment from Rajaryanmalhotra, who has no other edits outside this page. - Mike Rosoft 16:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
Delete - If anyone believes that this site is notable, please, provide a reference. It's not enough to say something is famous, you have to provide proof. Someone said it was covered in Business Today. Okay, please provide a link to an actual dated article? Did the magazine cover it as a formal profile, or just include a mention of the site in a list? If the latter, that's what's called a "trivial mention", not real press. But if someone can provide proof that this site is notable enough to have non-trivial coverage in third-party sources, I might change my mind. Please read these links for more information: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability, WP:WEB, and WP:CORP. Also, if you believe that it's a startup that will be famous someday, that's fine, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In other words, Wikipedia is not here to help a startup get noticed -- Wikipedia is here to cover a company after it's been noticed. In order to stay on Wikipedia, this article needs to provide proof of that status, that the company is already famous. --Elonka 17:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- - Business Today is a print media publication. They don't have articles online. But luckily I found a copy of the same, which i've scanned and uploaded here (The article appeared in September 2005). Bixee on Webyantra (Webyantra is equivalent of Techcrunch for India), Gautam Ghosh's Blog (Prominent business blogger). There are many more bloggers writing about Bixee on a regular basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajaryanmalhotra (talk • contribs) 12:56, September 29, 2006
- Switching my vote to Keep. The new references convinced me of notability. I've gone ahead and added them to the article, thank you. Please be sure to always include references in the future! :) --Elonka 19:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Business Today is a print media publication. They don't have articles online. But luckily I found a copy of the same, which i've scanned and uploaded here (The article appeared in September 2005). Bixee on Webyantra (Webyantra is equivalent of Techcrunch for India), Gautam Ghosh's Blog (Prominent business blogger). There are many more bloggers writing about Bixee on a regular basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajaryanmalhotra (talk • contribs) 12:56, September 29, 2006
Commentary
[edit]There seems to be a fair amount of sockpuppet voting here. See WP:SOCK. Using sockpuppets to vote in deletion discussions is very bad form on Wikipedia, and can result in being entirely blocked from the service. Please stop it. For best results, please remove votes by additional accounts, and only use your one primary username. --Elonka 19:59, 29 September 2006 (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.