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.
Non-notable website lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance (a lot of blog entries). Appears to fail WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has some coverage in SEO and tech blogs, e.g.[1], but not in the reliable tech media. Fences&Windows 18:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This site has a 6 page rank, is a top 100k site in the US - and it is growing steadily. Plus, the real time web is one of the most talked about topics in the internet industry right now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.16.221 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC) — 76.94.16.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment – Unfortunately none of this supports Wikipedia notability. ttonyb (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What does establish notability for a website if not traffic and page ranking?
Comment – As described above, see WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the wikipedia standard for a website article simply or primarily having news or press coverage? It seems to me that press coverage is a poor standard of notability. Actual use of the website IE traffic and page ranking is, by nature of the actual purpose of any website, a significant measurement.
Comment – Unfortunately, popularity does not equal Wikipedia notability. Also see WP:POPULARPAGE for a discussion of the fallacy of page view stats in determining notability. ttonyb (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2010 (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.