Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StockPhotoFinder
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 delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- StockPhotoFinder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable photo search finder, fails WP:WEB. Thus, it has over thousand of photos have been searched in that site. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 03:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:35, 21 July 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) 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Q : Specialized search engines may make a good list if it can be shown to be encyclopedic and non-reudundant with google or rest of web. Is there such a page for a merge? Unless this is not even boarder-line notable I would think a merge into a list may be possible. Note also that image search is a bit of a research area. If these is some novel feature that is published, cite that work and see if you can show this to be notable and interesting. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it fails WP:WEB. I couldn't find any citations to assert its notability as the "first stock photo search engine", either. talkingbirds 22:33, 9 August 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.