Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presearch (search engine)

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. czar 03:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presearch (search engine)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Poorly-sourced article about a non-notable blockchain related company. MER-C 19:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was able to find one somewhat independent source, which I've added to the article in order to give it a fair shake. That said there aren't the multiple, independent sources required to meet WP:GNG, and therefore this is a case of TOOSOON at best. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 20:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems like there is plenty of coverage in independent reliable sources if you search the news for 'Presearch blockchain'. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure advert for two-month old online business. No independent reliable sources discussing it directly save business listings and launching news. Also don't vaguely link to Google search result, give us the sources and let's see their content, who is behind the content and how reliable they are. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG because it does not get the coverage from multiple independent sources that would be required to pass GNG. Tillerh11 (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The lead, which reads "Presearch is a search engine based on blockchain technology, ...", makes no sense at all.
Besides blockchain not being a technology, then blockchain is extremely ill suited (read: unusable!) for holding any index/indices of the appropriate kind (storage being half of the basis for any general web search engine like Google, Bing, Yandex, DuckDuckGo, etc.): Blockchain stores data in a tamper-proof way. Any such data structure is exactly opposite to the kind of storage which the dynamic content nature of the web calls for.
(Given the glaring nonsense found as the very first words of the article, then I suggest the author to read WP:CIR. ... ) -- DexterPointy (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 08:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Setting aside scepticism about this combination of blockchain and make-money-by-searching, I am seeing nothing better than routine start-up publicity and announcements of appointments. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as a company and WP:GNG as a product. AllyD (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2018 (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.