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. This definitely needs closing (relisted, and no one added any more comments!). I would like to point out a few things:

Alexa rankings, while a useful indication of the notablility of a site, are not necessarily formal nor binding in AfDs. We wish to point out lack of notability, but an Alexa ranking is probably not the way to go to achieve that goal (no offense intended toward MER-C, just a friendly pointer).
Universities link to the site: [1], [2]. This is, usually, a good indication of notability.
The article, however, does read as an advertisment. Therefore tagged as ((ad)).

Cheers, Yuser31415 05:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OttoBib.com[edit]

After initial prod, sources confirming notability lacking since 19 December 2006. ∴ here…♠ 07:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - alexa = 453,033: [3]. MER-C 12:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the current rating of 453,033 is irrelevant. The notability claim in the article is that it reached a much higher Alexa rating at the time of year that people frequently want to produce citations. I wasnt able to find a reliable source for the ranking of 166,653, however the traffic graph does indicate its ranking would have been much higher last October, and implies that it will be higher again when this seasonal service is needed. Even if it doesnt reach that height again, the notability claim still stands for once-famous subjects. John Vandenberg 00:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Alexa test is misapplied in this case, since this is an educational resource, and MacOS is more common in education than in general, but Alexa is MS Windows specific. Aside from this, the Alexa ranking of a Web tool, where people visit for a specific need cannot be compared to a news or information web site. Dhaluza 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if one overlooks the Alexa numbers, the article still misses The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, from Wikipedia:Notability (web). I also do not find the award listed to be well-known enough to satisfy the award criteria. ∴ here…♠ 03:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

neutral I had some involvement with this article, so Im not voting. I first saw this as an attempted external link in one of the search engine pages. These attract a good deal of spam, so before I'd edit out a new one, I'd try to see if it was for real. (One reason I go to that length is because it is an inarguable way of getting rid of the worst, and another is that I have a RW need to know about these things.) This one looked very simple--but it didn't function right, at least for me. So I deleted it and had some talk with the ed., who was I believe not the programmer but a friend. Sooner or later it worked, and I didn't delete it, on the basis it was useful even if little known. I advised against the creation of this article, for it really wasn't known at the time, about 4 months ago, but I said I wouldn't move to delete it because of my own COI. Many people have been writing simple devices with various combinations of features to search library catalogs, and its hard to say what's notable except by what people use. I haven't checked since. ( it does work now, and very fast--I haven't tried the features or the detailed accuracy )

I do think that to judge the notability of programs and sites like this, or many blogs, etc. by the criteria we are using is not in my opinion always appropriate. By the nature of the things, they get widely seen and widely used long before there are reliable sources in the WP sense. The Web documents itself. The place where people look to find the earliest information is WP itself, because of our presumed special interest in web related matters. We can't help it, if we have become the opinion leader. The basic N provisions are 3 or 4 years old now. The part of the world we live in is changed a good deal. I'm not suggesting rewriting, for i wouldn't know what to rewrite them to, and using Alexa rank for special interest material is like using Amazon rank for special interest books or ghits for material in Hindi -- possibly relative use among similar products is a criterion. This of course gives us the responsibility to do a little OR in establishing N, but most of the lengthier N discussions are in effect OR. We've grown up. Until we come to terms with adulthood, the best way to go is to make reasonable exceptions.

What would help in this case is some evidence that 2 or more universities have linked to it from their library or research help site--the same sort of criterion we use for textbooks. That technically does meet the rules. DGG 05:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful contextual comments. One correction: I was the original author, but I had no contact with the web site author prior to discovering this tool in my work on other Wikipedia article references, so the assumption that I am a friend, and this influenced the article content is incorrect. I did carefully consider your advice on not pursuing this article, but after further research decided that this was a new and useful tool, and other knowledgeable people said this on the record as well, and that should be enough to establish notability in this case. I agree that the guidelines at WP:WEB are overly restrictive and not suitable for special interest topics like web tools. So I tried to very carefully structure the article in accordance with the policies WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. If some think that this attempt fell short on the last one, perhaps the involvement of other editors will improve it over time. Dhaluza 11:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; with a little googling I was able to find two universities that link to the site, technically satisfying the requirements as DGG said. As-is the article definitely sounds like an advertisement though, it needs a thorough NPOV overhaul. Krimpet 09:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. You may want to relist this since there was an error in the listing that made this section not directly editable from the AfD article. I just fixed the listing. Vegaswikian 09:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Actually it was listed twice, the first incorrectly and the second correctly. I deleted the incorrect listing. Vegaswikian[reply]
Keep. Based upon DGG's suggested criteria and Krimpet's demonstration of the standard being met. Vassyana 12:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 18:30, 6 February 2007 (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.