Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghostery
Contrary to what Phantomsteve writes, there are numerous quantitatively subjective criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. See  and  for examples. I don't see why an academic topic that has been noted by one other academic is WP notable, or why an academic that has at least 100 citations (Google Scholar h-index of 10, which may well be self-citations) is WP notable, but this software which has millions of downloads is not. A search in Google books finds several mentions with more or less brief blurb: one in PC World (print) Volume 27, Issues 1-6, one in http://books.google.com/books?id=BjhFgc4DdjIC&pg=PA525 Windows 7 All-in-One For Dummies and one in Time (magazine) http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2058114-5,00.html that add to notability. Because it's a cross-browser extension it would be impractical to merge this to all four browser articles' involved. It also meets the letter of , with a long review in Macworld http://www.macworld.com/article/159667/2011/05/ghostery_browser_extension.html and shorter ones in http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,76794-page,1/description.html?&page=59 PC World (also syndicated in Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/05/AR2009030502997.html) and http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/downloads/3249403/ghostery-for-chrome-23/ PC Advisor. A longer review appeared in PC Advisor for an older version http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/reviews/software/3254580/ghostery-review
— User:FuFoFuEd, 15:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:CREATIVE||WP:PROF||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)