Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alizée Search

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Thanks particularly to User:Ekna for his well organized keep argument. However the basis for inclusion seems to be a supposed novelty, the inclusion of favicons in search results. This seems somewhat trivial, the inclusion of that particular content being in no way an aspect of this particular search engine's algorithm. Moreover the claim that this is the first search engine to do so is unsourced. Verifiable material about this search engine may be obtained at some point in the future, at which point it is possible that a useful article on the subject might be written. The consensus at present seems to be that this is not that article. --Tony Sidaway 15:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alizée Search

Alizée Search (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod. Article presents no verifiable claim for notability of subject, and cites no sources other than the website it is about. -- Schaefer (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails WP:WEB hard. Just another keyword squatter. --Dhartung | Talk 04:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable search engine.Obina 16:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm relaying this comment from the aticle's creator and primary author, copied from Talk:Alizée Search:

I have noticed that the article has been nominated for AFD. Please do not close the AFD discussion before I have been able to add my contribution within the next few days. Thanks. Ekna 18:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

-- Schaefer (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The article is not about a website.
WP:WEB describes guidelines which apply to articles about web-specific content, which is defined by WP:WEB as "the content of a website or the specific website itself". The article is neither about the website www.alizeesearch.com nor its contents. The article is about the search engine/web crawler Alizée Search, which is an algorithmic information retrieval system. This is a subtle although important difference.
  • The subject is notable.
In accordance to WP:WEB, the article includes the significance of the Alizée Search web crawler: it was the first web crawler to retrieve favicons from web domains during its web crawl and display them on the web search results pages. This novelty makes the subject of the article notable in combination with the next point.
  • The verifiability can be improved.
The addition of citations of independent reliable sources other than www.alizeesearch.com would improve the article's verifiability. I see actual possibilities to include these required additional citations into the article. A good example is the fact-tag that has been added by Pseudo daoist as of October 29. I will enquire about relevant sources, for which I need a short period of time.
In conclusion, I will continu to:
  • Improve the article by bringing forward the first two points mentioned above more clearly and by including the points raised by the other contributors to this discussion within the next few days (at the latest by November 4).
  • Improve the verifiability of uncited facts in the article as mentioned in the third point by performing a survey for reliable sources within the next month (at the latest by November 27).
Under these conditions the deletion of the article at this time is unfounded. Ekna 21:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The claim to notability is not verifiable, as the article does not cite any third-party source for the claim that it was the first web crawler to retrieve favicons. You said, "I see actual possibilities to include these required additional citations into the article." Please elaborate on this. What reliable third-party sources do you believe contain information on Alizée-Search that the article might cite? -- Schaefer (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I will add my response tomorrow. Ekna 09:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, you say that "the claim to notability is not verifiable". This statement is inaccurate. At most one could argue that in the current version of the article the claim to notability is not sufficiently supported by reliable third party references. The statement that the verifiability can not possibly be improved is truly unverifiable itself.
The Wikipedia policy on verifiability requires citations to published works written by reliable and independent third parties in many possible forms, e.g., websites, reports, books, and articles in magazines and newspapers. As I said, the article can be improved with respect to this point. Appropriate sources for the mentioned claim include in this case, for example, respected achives or similar documentation. I am looking forward to enquire about this type of sources, for which I need some time.
On this basis, rejection of a conditional keep is simply unreasonable. Ekna 20:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the claim to notability is not supported by reliable third-party sources is precisely why it's not verifiable. You seem to be contradicting yourself, or at least working with a very strange definition of verifiability. From WP:V:
"Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.
As the article stands, the reader cannot do this. There is no link to a reliable third-party source a reader can follow to verify that Alizée-Search is, in fact, the first search engine to list favicons in the search results. Because this fact is unverifiable, and because it seems to be entirety of Alizée-Search's claim to notability (ignoring for now whether it would be sufficient even if it were verifiable), the article does not meet the inclusion standards of WP:N. The fact that you believe this situation can be changed at some unspecified point in the future does nothing to make the claim verifiable now, and thus the article should be deleted now. If, as you believe, situations change and reliable third-party sources can be found, then you can always use Wikipedia's deletion review process to restore the content and add proper references. -- Schaefer (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
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.