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 of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix 15:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine Watch[edit]

This stub is about one of many SEO-related websites. It would seem like the only reason for this article is to provide the web site with two links from Wikipedia. --Synlighet 22:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable. Alexa rank 973. Mark as stub if you like. --Craig Stuntz 17:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As much as I dislike snake oil salesmen SEO consultants, this is easily one of the top three sites on the topic, arguably the top site. Definitely notable. Keep. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Alexa Rank means it meets WP:WEB. Google News shows over 400 hits (mostly because it is a source) including references to the San Francisco Chronicle and Nightline. Capitalistroadster 00:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Alexa rank alone do not justify an article. Most hits on Google news are from searchenginewatch or SEO-related blogs, and can't be justifed as a reason to keep the article. We could be facing a lot of equally notable stubs about other SEO-related web sites if we keep this one. Delete

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.