Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine

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 of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine

A distributed web crawler project with an Alexa rank of >40,000 - and guess what? Wikipedia is the otp site linking in. Currently in alpha. Lots of "aims to", not much "has". Just zis Guy you know? 22:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete until they become more notable. ---J.S (t|c) 22:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TheProject 05:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to neutral because a number of news articles have been laid out in support of notability. However, I would like to respond to a few things, namely that 1) I knew OneLook before I knew Wikipedia, 2) please refrain from bringing in users for the sake of voting in an RfA, 3) as JzG has mentioned, the fact that there are other possible non-notable articles on Wikipedia does not mean that another non-notable article on Wikipedia may not be deleted, and 4) please do not make personal attacks, which comments like "you besmirch Wikipedia's name" can be easily construed as. The author has laid out a decent case against the AfD, I wish him best of luck in his project and look forward to a time when Wikipedia has a featured article on his project that won't be listed on AfD because it will have become very notable by then. TheProject 00:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per J.S. DarthVader 11:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • do NOT delete
I am the founder of Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine project. It appears to be that desire to delete this legit article is totally wrong: if you bothered to check out website you'd see that we have achieved a LOT in a very short time, for example our index available for searching is 1 bln pages. How many search engines in the world have achieved that and how many of them based on principles of distributed computing that allow normal people to join the project?
The fact that Alexa's (rather questionable) rank is over 40,000 or any other value should have no effect on decision to delete this article that is factural and can be verified easily. If this is a requirement of Wikipedia to only have articles about pages that are ranked more than 40,000 by Alexa, then please show me that rule. :-/
We actually got into mainstream press recently, see article (it was actually published on paper as well as online) from The Guardian: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1736761,00.html and there are reprints around the world, what more do you want, big flashy TV ads? :-/
regards,
Alex Chudnovsky
  • Comment: index size is not an indicator of notability. The Guardian article, however, could change some minds. TheProject 17:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, that article also has a lot of "want to", not so much "has", to incorrectly quote JzG. TheProject 17:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why remove the entry of an fully operation growing project? Maybe the text can use some improvements but with the reason mentioned above we could prolly put up for deletion all articles about new ideas. [hoping no-one wants to delete history articles because they are old...] -RetroX
The article is not listed on AfD because it is new. The article is listed on AfD because its notability is in serious question. If we find a historical article whose notability is also similarly dubious, it will go to AfD also. TheProject 18:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are similar articles on Wikipedia for projects that have had less visibility than ours, does it mean they should be deleted? Please refer me to Wikipedia rule which explicitly states what Alexa rank should a webpage have in order to qualify for Wikipedia entry.
  • Comment: The fact that this article is marked for deletion is madness. Maybe I could go and mark some articles for deletion just because I feel like it.. because thats basically what has happened. Wikipedia is for learning, this article is informative anbd should not be deleted. [Evil-Dragon]
As for your assertion on '"aims to", not much "has"' then please be specific on what _exactly_ is untrue on the Wikipedia article. Of course we have far reaching aims, which have not being fully achieved yet, however, if you going to delete all articles that declare some aims then I suggest start from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista and if you don't like name "alpha version", then please lets delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_News - after all its beta, though it may have high Alexa rank.
While I am naturally biased, it seems to be that desire to delete this article is totally unjustifiable and in my view not supported by Wikipedia policies: specifically your reference to Alexa's rank is totally irrelevant as it comes from Windows only toolbar from a very niche segment of people who chose to install it, and if you use it as indicator of worthiness for Wikipedia then consider deleting Linux related entries.
So to sum up, please refer me to either wrong facts in the article or relevant policy of the Wikipedia that requires deletion of article on the basis of Alexa's rank. If you can't do neither, then IMO you should withdraw proposal for deletion, apology is optional though would be welcomed.
Alex Chudnovsky
Nobody claims that the article is untrue. The article has been placed on AfD on the basis of its non-notability. All untrue articles are (or should be) deleted from Wikipedia, but not all articles deleted from Wikipedia are deleted because they are untrue. In fact, most deleted articles are 100% accurate, but also 100% non-notable. I'm not the one who brought up Alexa rank, but it is but one way -- in my opinion, not a very good one, and as I said, I'm not the one who brought it up -- to point out an subject's notability, or lack thereof. Also, the fact that Wikipedia is the top site linking in casts considerable doubt on the notability of the article subject. TheProject 18:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Notability is subjective matter: we are the leading distributed computing project of this type (building search engine) and if you care to read relevant sites you will that, for example here: http://distributedcomputing.info/news.html and http://distributedcomputing.info/ap-internet.html#majestic12 we are also in DMOZ.org directory.
The fact that Alexa says something about Wikipedia is irrelevant - Alexa has very flawed stats that are biased and using them to justify your actions is just laughable to me as I've spend some good time in web analytics. Don't believe me? Check Alexa's traffic report for distributedcomputing.info - the best site on distributed computing efforts: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=distributedcomputing.info&url=distributedcomputing.info Its very notable to those in the area of distributed computing, but Alexa says it has rank of more than 231,000!!! Though I am certain that they are more known than us!
I mean for Christ's sake, you saying that building alternative search engine is not notable? You mean that achiving 10 bln crawled pages and building index of 1 bln pages is not worth noting? What's worth noting then, anything that Alexa says is Top 40,000 site visited by fraction of users who happan to use Alexas toolbar?
We are certainly noteable enough to have more than 100 people join the effort, and have UK national press write about us as well as get invited for New Media awards in the UK, how could that be not noteable? If you are not interested in distributed computing then you are highly unlikely to be able to judge what's worth noting and what's not, in which case it would be better if you directed your efforts in deleting articles in other areas.
Here are links around the world about us:
  1. The Guardian (big national UK paper) http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1736761,00.html
  2. http://www.contractoruk.com/002593.html
  3. One UK IT magazine that I can't name right now as it will be in the next issue
  4. Norwegian big (was told biggest) IT mag: http://www.digi.no/php/art.php?id=297379
  5. Russian huge news site: http://www.lenta.ru/articles/2006/04/07/distributed/
And many blog entries, but more importantly we are the leading project of that kind in the whole world, and if that's not noteable then I don't know what is, its not like we were founded yesterday either: almost 18 months actually.
The injustice that is taking place here is really making me aggravated - if I did not check the article today (first in many weeks) I would not even have noticed that it was sneakily marked for deletion and it would have been gone in 5 days had I not posted here, this is just not right: check the links in the article and try to find someone more noteable than us in this area.
And by the way, the article in the Guardian certainly refers to future plans, what's your problem with that? Of course there are things that are planned, it would be stupid not to have plans, and its perfectly legitimate to voice those plans especially since you can check what we have achieved by now, and if you looked at historical promises you'd see that what we have achieved now was planned before, so if you see problem with that then its really your personal point of view to believe them or not. As far as I am concerned article about us on here is factually correct and without doubt we are the most noteable project of that kind in the whole world.
AlexC
  • Comment:
Alexa guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Google_test#Alexa_test specifically note: "However, Alexa rankings are not a part of the notability guidelines for web sites for several reasons". Therefore it seems to me that Alexa's rank should be irrelevant.
We are in a list of search engines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines
Take a note how many search engines there, notice how many search engines in Distributed category, perhaps there is someone more noteable in this category, or perhaps whole category should be removed because Alexas says so?
Finally, consider using Google test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Google_test
Who is listed on the first page for "distributed search engine" or even "distributed search"? They use geo-targeting so exact position is different, but its #1 for me for search in the UK, note that there are 54 mln matches.
AlexC
  • Comment: Also the fact that the bot is shown in awstats server logs makes a wiki entry usefull. This way servermaintainers can find info on bots and what they do. -RetroX
  • Comment: Thus far you've done a great job of telling us what Wikipedia can do for your project, and the ways in which your project can use Wikipedia (do you really think that the fact of your having added the project to the list of search engines is in some way credibel evidence of notability?), but you have failed to establish the importance of your project. What is needed is verifiable information from reliable secondary sources so we can prove that the article is neutral. Since these are absent, and the article makes it clear this is not even necessarily the final name for the project, I'd say you have some work to do yet. Just zis Guy you know? 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment
Majestic-12 & Wikipedia pojects have the same ultimate goal.
From The Wikipedia:About about page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About
Begun in 2001, Wikipedia has rapidly grown into the largest reference website on the Internet. The content of Wikipedia is free, written collaboratively by people from all around the world. This website is a wiki, which means that anyone with access to an Internet-connected computer can edit, correct, or improve information throughout the encyclopedia, simply by clicking the edit this page link.
Majestic-12
Begun in late 2004 Majestic-12 has rapidly grown into a large Distributed Search Engine on the internet. The content of the Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine is crawled collaboratively by people from all around the world. This search Engine is a Distributed Computing Project, which means that anyone with access to an Internet connected computer can participate and improve the collaboration of information simply be crawling the web using a Search Node.
The project has been noted by the Media already and will grow with the help of active participants just the same as Wikipedia. To delete this entry from Wikiepedia is to crush another potential knowledge base that is BEING BUILT BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE.
Grubee
  • Comment:
I have provided list of articles from independent sources, I also demonstrated that Wikipedia's own words say against usage of Alexa to determine notability, thus your arguement of this article being not-notable does not hold because you rely on flawed Alexa's stats and totally disregard information published by well respected independent sources like The Guardian. If you do not like something in their article then its your problem, however you can't credibly claim that the project is not notable because this is completely false.
Furthermore, its clear that you did not bother to read our site at all - http://www.majestic12.co.uk/about.php in short we can be for search engines what Wikipedia is for Encyclopedias, even though vandals really should be kept in check.
If you don't believe that our project is important then don't join it, but don't vandalise valid articles by deleting them: try CREATING something rather than deleting. And with all due respect - the choice of name is not really up to you and the fact that it may or may not change in the future should not concern you in the least: if you don't like that then delete Microsoft Vista's page because its name was changed from Longhorn. -alexc
  • Question:There is a huge explanation of how to proof its usefull. In my opinion wiki is built to gather knowledge (even about the smaller things). What proof is there of NOT being usefull or proof of violating rules? -RetroX
  • Comment:
Your original deletion words are these: "A distributed web crawler project with an Alexa rank of >40,000 - and guess what?", I posted link on Wikipedia which clearly states that Alexas data should NOT be used for purposes of notability because of known flaws, yet you based your deletion arguement on this flawed approach and refuse to withdraw it, instead making up further accusations as you go. For starters I'd like you to withdraw Alexa's arguement (low rank) completely before we move to other alleged issues with the article: if the article violates specific points of policy then please post those points, dont send away to pages and pages of text, it is YOU who should provide exact points that the article allegedly violates. So, do you withdraw your Alexa's arguement, yes or no?
And look what we have here in your own reference: WP:SOFTWARE I qoute: Software is considered to be notable enough for inclusion if it meets _ANY_ of the following criteria:" <-- see word ANY? Now continue reading at the link that we qualify for criteria: 1, 2 - we have independent sources verifying it, see The Guardian link (and it was actually printed inreal paper, not just online).
You are 100% wrong on this one, be honest enough to admit to mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexchudnovsky (talk • contribs) .
Calm down already. Assume good faith and be civil. Demanding an apology is not going to help you at all. Alexa ranking isn't everything, obviously, but it isn't nothing, either, and JzG didn't use Alexa ranking as everything, as you seem to make him out to be doing. He also pointed out that the top site linking in is WP, a legitimate concern which hasn't been addressed at all. As for telling JzG to post policies that the article violates, he just posted them. I might add that the article violates WP:SPAM and WP:VAIN, too. About the only thing I would give it notability for is the press coverage, but, as has already been mentioned, that happens to have a lot of future goals and not a lot of accomplishments to date. (And lest you point out Vista again, Vista is a continuation of an already notable OS series, and also a subject which is notable simply for the fact that it is being anticipated by so many.)
Let me put it this way: if an average user, not connected with the project, finds Majestic-12 notable enough that they feel there should be an article about it, then the project probably meets notability requirements. An article about someone should not be created by someone who has something to do with the article subject. If it has already been created (as it is in this case), the question then becomes: if we deleted it, could we reasonably expect the article to be re-created by an average user not associated with the subject? If not, then the project is clearly non-notable outside of the project itself. TheProject 20:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be that rules of Wikipedia are not being followed here: I have provided link to Wikipedia entry clearly stating that Alexa should not be used for purposes of notability, since the original reason for deletion was such rank it means that automatically such deletion request should be invalid.
Additionally I have actually provided independent articles about us, let me just refer you to the Wikipedia's rules:
WP:SOFTWARE I quote: Software is considered to be notable enough for inclusion if it meets _ANY_ of the following criteria:" <-- see word ANY? Now continue reading at the link that we qualify for criteria: 1, 2 - we have independent sources verifying it, see The Guardian link (and it was actually printed inreal paper, not just online). Thus we qualify for inclusion and your suggestions about average user are just your view: according to the rules of Wikipedia this article has 100% right to exist on Wikipedia.
You mention a lot of goals and no accomplishments and this is blatantly untrue, I suggest that you make specific accusation of what you think was and was not achieved as with all due respect you did not put into it a 1/100th of time to actually have a sound judgment over the issue.
And also, lets not dig new accusations just as previous one fail: the original claim was based on Alexa, and it should not have been, thus should be withdrawn, if you later find that article violates other rules of Wikipedia then do new delete and we can discuss it.
So can I please ask you not to use your personal views but stick to the rules of Wikipedia. alexc 20:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not using my personal views. If you're talking about my "average user" comment, that's a paraphrase of WP:VAIN, an official guideline, which states: "The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them." (emphasis mine) Secondly, as I've stated already, Alexa ranks may not be almighty, but they are not completely irrelevant, either.
To address your other points: WP:SOFTWARE is not official policy, and as it says on its own page, is a "rough guideline" (emphasis mine). Furthermore, new reasons for deletion can be added to an existing AfD. Nothing says that we have to judge this AfD based on merits of Alexa ranking, wait for this AfD to terminate, then start another AfD based on the fact that it violates all of the other policies that JzG has pointed out.
You seem to be hung up on this Alexa point, when there are so many other reasons JzG and others have pointed out why the article fails to assert notability. TheProject 21:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The article was not written by me - it was written by a person who came across with our project last year and thought to create a Wiki article on it. This is your "average user" if you like, he did not know about us before but once learnt wrote that article and from my side I just keep it up to date so that quoted numbers (ie indexed page) are correct.
I see now that you refer to WP:SOFTWARE as not policy, however it was mentioned above as something we violate. You now mention its spam - which it clearly is not, and also vanity - which it is not either because it was not created by me and there is independent confirmation of importance of the project by the Guardian and others. What more do you require - billboards and TV ads? alexc
  • Keep This whole matter is kind of humourous. If this were a US court, the whole case for deletion would have been thrown out by now. JzG provides false evidence in his reason for deleting the page. Courts would dismiss that rather quickly, and fine him for wasting the courts' time. BarkerJr
Here is similar Wiki entry for similar project (that is now shutdown): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grub_distributed_web-crawling_project Why is it okay to have that entry (and many others), but this one is not okay? alexc
Here is more food for thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_search_engines <---- see how many search engines listed there? Over 100, so, should in your view then most of them be deleted also? Is this how you view Wikipedia - only tells about dominant things like in this case would be Google/Yahoo/MSN? alexc
  • Delete as non notable website. --Eivindt@c 21:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: No - I would not nominate them because those entries there are legitimate articles. It is _you_ who wishes to delete this article and I am pointing out that not only you providing no valid Wiki rules, but even if what you proposed was correct, then it would require deletion of most of Search Engines listed there, so, I am challenging you to apply _same_ standard of scrutiny to all articles in Search Engine category rather than pick on someone. In fact I just noticed you did nominate some other search engine too: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eliteweb&action=history so why did you nominate tham and us, but not (for example) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneLook ? Why is it you not deleting almost all of the search engines listed there since many of them are less notable (and certainly less unique) than us?
  • And I still dont understand what's your problem with independent links I quoted - with all due respect the Guardian is more independent than you and they certainly have very high standards that they apply virogously, if you believe that they lied in the article then why won't you sue them? If you can prove that then you will certainly contribute something rather than deleting genuine article without good reason. alexc
I think you'll find that I know a little about policy. Last time I checked I was an admin. Yup, seems I still am. Just zis Guy you know? 22:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Since you know policy so well and since you are an admin, then can you please explain me why this article was nominated for deletion but many other about other search engines were not, example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneLook Can you please spell out clearly what exactly makes that URL not break Wikipedia rules. alexc
At this rate, he won't be admin much longer. Ignoring WP rules and such. BarkerJr
  • I found majestics search engine through the norwegian news article about it. I just would like to say that normally I would not be very interested in joining such programs, and probably wouldn't have stayed long with it if it wasn't for the developer of it. If you can find anyone that is more active than Alex here when it comes to listening to problems or communicating with the people that is helping this project I would be impressed. Usually get an answer within 5 minutes(just check out my posts on his forum, username: Dagger). This project I am pretty sure will grow rapidly, and as it's index grows, more and more newssources will grab a hold on it. Would't be surprised if it will air on televised news somewhere in not too long a time. You may delete this article, but my guess it would appear again at some point, and with much stronger foundations against deletion(although I feel it deserves a place here). I have full faith in Alex and the progression of this project.
Well, this is my last post on this topic: I am grateful to supporters of the project who not only take part in very Wiki-like project, but also created Wiki page in the first place, sad to see that actions of few people on here throw shadow on good Wikipedia image, shame, but time will judge who was right - I certainly hope you will still be admin(s) by then, the only worry I have is that other legit pages will fall prey to your unjust actions. One thing I will tell you though - at Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine power will not be held in hands of few individuals and no deletions of sites from index will be possible just because few men have got big egos and apply double standards. Shame on you - you besmirch Wikipedia's name. That's my last post on the topic - hope other articles about search engines will be spared deletion. alexc 23:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I have added a rationale for my new position at the top of the page. TheProject 00:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for change of mind, but I really think that "2) please refrain from bringing in users for the sake of voting in an RfA" is yet another unjust thing: you can't seriously be expecting people to check article every day, I noticed it was marked for deletion today by pure chance: last time I checked it was many weeks ago, so if I were to follow your logic then it would work like this: Admin A marks article for deletion, if its not the most well known piece of info that is edited by many editors then its all probability nobody will actually object to it and article gets deleted, and you automatically disqualify relevant parties in effect allowing only those who are totally unrelated to the thing to voice their opinion that in their view the project is not notable (of course for YOU it is not because you may have never heard of it and don't take independent views as well as those who participate in it in consideration!), if that's not flawed process then I don't know what is. And you mention that you knew OneLook - so what, does it make it better article and more deserving one? Does it mean just because something new appears it should not be listed on Wiki simply because you have not heard of that before? The whole situation is really a farce - if this is how decision making is working here then its clearly very flawed: rules should be rules for everyone, if article about Majestic-12 is not deserving despite having recent major newspapers talking about us, then you should delete many many Wikipedia articles like yesterday. Anyway I am abtaining from posting any further and reserve the right to follow appeal processes that are available on Wikipedia: its about time to check first hand if Wikipedia critisisms are justified. alexc 00:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, policy on bringing in users for AfD is something I can't change, and it is almost indistinguishable from sockpuppetry. AfDs have always traditionally counted votes by more established users (which I, by the way, do NOT claim to be, in any way, shape, or form) as more weighty as those of less established users. As for Wikipedia having all these other articles, as has been mentioned here already, the fact that these articles exist is not a good reason for this AfD not to exist. TheProject 01:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
And its not bothering you in the least that if there are scores more articles in the same category of Internet Search Engines that should also be deleted _IF_ AfD against this one stands? Are you actually going to proceed deleting them or just ignore them as the "job" here is done? Did it not occur to you that if there is a rule effectively outlawing most entries in that category, then such rule ought to be wrong? This whole conversation makes me feel like I am back in USSR: no matter what you say, no matter how genuine the situation is (what more notability you want apart from dedicated article in UK national newspaper, a Super Ball TV ad maybe is needed to change your mind?), the people with power have their own way despite common sense. This is really not about this article - I can assure you that I won't lose sleep over removal of the article, however this injustice seems to expose a serious flaw in Wikipedia that really can't be left unopposed. What would you say if I checked automatically all articles with external urls and marked all of them for deletion that have Alexa's rank below 40,000 would that be acceptable? alexc 01:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I've already made my opinion known in my blurb at the top, and this is the last I'll say of the matter: if there are other non-notable articles that need to be deleted, then Wikipedia will take care of them in due process. (I urge you to have a look at WP:POINT before doing anything, though.) And I still believe you are completely hung up over this Alexa thing. It's not the only item in the AfD. As for now, though, I'm just going to let this AfD run its course. No point in wrangling anymore -- you've made your point repeatedly, and it's a good one, and I've repeatedly tried to convey to you that the Alexa argument is not the only argument, nor is it a strong argument. I hold neutral on this AfD. Okay? TheProject 03:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Apart from the ones which are notable, obviously. Reductio ad absurdam: because the article on my garden shed is deleted as a non-notable building, the article on the Tower of London must also be deleted. Just zis Guy you know? 12:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I am not suggesting to delete any articles in Internet search engines category, what I am saying however if _this_ article is deemed not deserving (despite national press coverage) then many articles in the category should be also deleted leaving a handful of prominent SEs like Google/MSN/Yahoo. This would clearly be less than sum of human knowledge that Wikipedia wants to achieve: it seems to me that you've made your mind and no rational arguement will change it, I hope people in arbitration are more reasonable. alexc 12:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A searchengine wich visits millions of websites with hundreds of volunteers, leaving bot signatures in millions of awstats pages of websites an the searchengine getting used by lots of visitors and for wich 3th parties are developing tools for and is written about in national newspapers seems a bit more notable then your gardenshed. I agree this M12 DSE is not as big as Google but still i think its worth to keep the article about the project and this new way of distributed searching. -RetroX
  • The sheer fact that Majestic12 impacts so many people (volunteers, web masters, users) and that it is an incredible achievement surely makes the article notable. There is national coverage (Guardian Newspaper) of the project and the Wikipedia article provides a way for ordinary people to understand more on how it works and what the long term goals are. I find it amazing that an article such as this be considered for deletion. 82.11.44.91 15:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Mike Challis
  • Hmm.... i see no reason why to remove the article. The project website seems active and the article info seems correct. I can discus if the project itself apeals to me or not but that is not the point. Wikipedia is a source of information and this article contains usefull information. The removal of articles should be kept to a minimum in my opinion. Only to remove false information or submission made while intentionaly breaking rules (spam etc). So to state it simple: i recommend to keep this article. 213.219.190.222 20:18, 6 May 2006 (CET)
  • Just found this search engine in my server log after I'd seen it a couple of weeks back in a major German news outlet (www.sueddeutsche.de) and came to wikipedia to check for information on it. If people think it's rogue and evil and should not even be talked about, then you might want to delete it. Don't know. Some say Microsoft is rogue and evil. I, in any case, found useful information in the article, and with regard to the fact that there's of course some intentions stated, and perhaps even bragging, I would believe that that's hard to be entirely avoided if you're talking about some innovative project. Don't know, but my vote for "Potentially useful information which shouldn't be deleted, but made compliant with standards if it's found wanting on that count." Sorry for not registering, not that invested in the matter.--69.204.226.97 19:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the article. In the above discussion I can't find any violation marked out. Let me quote from the discussion: "I suggest you go and read WP:NOT, WP:ENC, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:SOFTWARE, an incomplete summary of some of the policies and guidelines this article currently violates. Just zis Guy you know? 19:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)". Please make a reference to violations in this article mentioned in these guidelines. Just listing them, don't make the article breaking the policy guidelines?! nsaa @ 2006-05-06 22:27Z
  • Weak Delete. Article fails to establish notability per WP:WEB, and WP:NOT a web directory. That said, I might be willing to keep if appopriate/verifiable external references were added, preferably by someone not associated with the project's development team. I should also note that I find the argumentative tone of article supporters extremely upsetting. --Alan Au 03:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Add these neutral external references to the article?
              1. The Guardian (big national UK paper) http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1736761,00.html
              2. http://www.contractoruk.com/002593.html
              3. Big Norwegian online IT mag: http://www.digi.no/php/art.php?id=297379
              4. Russian huge news site: http://www.lenta.ru/articles/2006/04/07/distributed/
nsaa @ 2006–05–07 07:28Z
* Added these links to the article. Did I violate any rules according to pages marked for deletion? nsaa @ 2006-05-07 15:12Z
  • Comment. Good job adding the links; improving an article up for AfD is accepted and even encouraged. My main concern is that a small group of people seem to have vested personal interests in having their article listed on Wikipedia, and that's really not what Wikipedia is all about. The perception of meatpuppetry doesn't help either. Until I'm comfortable that the subject is well-known enough that people unaffiliated with the project can contribute to improving the article, I'm inclined to stay with weak delete. Sorry. --Alan Au 18:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I was first made aware about the Majestic-12 project after reading the article in the Norwegian Digi [1]. I personally think this is an good idea, already doing quite well(?). Hopefully the article herein will get a lot better. nsaa @ 2006-05-07 21:40Z
  • Comment Just to make sure that I'm not misunderstood... I'm not affiliated with the MJ12 project. I just run the software and report bugs and such. So, I'm just a user. Take that for what you wish. BarkerJr 22:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing to no vote; I recommend re-nominating to get more input from other editors. --Alan Au 06:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the article. Wikipedia is all about sharing information that might be of general interest. Like distributed search engines, that because of it nature is one the few alternative that threaten Google's strong position. That is of course of public interest, and wikipedia is one the few sources that might be a neutral view on that matter and how majestic 12 seek to make a difference. This page should never have been voted for deletion in the first place.--Zyron 07:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Hello, I followed the link to this article from the list of search engines. I had not known about Mj12 before today. I may never have discovered this page without wikipedia and cannot understand why this article deserves deletion because of it's "un-notable-ness". Fair enough if this article was false it would deserve deletion, but notability is a hugely subjective concept, the GDP of Botswana is not notable for me in any way but someone out there needs to know it. Concentrate on clearing out the factual errors, mis-spellings, puctuation and grammar mistakes plaguing wikipedia before worrying about how important a topic is. My friends and I use wikipedia for information on things ranging from chocolate bars to the Carolingian empire. All things great and small, it's what wikipedia is USED for.

  • Comment Who decides how notable an article/subject matter is on Wikipedia? I thought Wikipedia users decide what’s notable and not moderators? If this is so then the above comments speak for themselves. I find it very sad that people are picking over an article because of notability, especially after being challenged they decide then to nitpick over any other rules that might be breaking. Police do a similar thing when they want to put someone away... even if it means breaking their own rules. I do have a suggestion though, why don't you just make all articles on Wikipedia created and editable by mods... would soon put an end to all these lengthy discussions and get back to having control over everything. Oh wait, that’s already happening, silly me.

So remember folks, if you happen to find a rare new bird or insect and want to tell the world about it then don't post it on Wikipedia... they'll only go delete it for being non-notable. Sorry for the rant, but hey someone's got to tell it as it is. --User:Evil-Dragon

    • Administrators don't have control over everything. For the record, I am not an administrator, although I hope to be one in the future. If you feel Wikipedia is run by an elite group of users with no input from the general public (the cabal, as it is referred to sometimes), nobody's forcing you to stay. Oh, and "if you happen to find a rare new bird or insect and want to tell the world about it", publish it a notable, refereed, journal. That'll make it verifiable and notable, and it'll be on Wikipedia in no time. (Well, soon enough, at least.) TheProject 21:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • do NOT delete First of all, Alexa is by no means a way to measure notability. It's collection of information relies on proprietary software. In certain sites, the percentage of userbase having the toolbar is much less than others. You can expect that the userbase and visitors of MJ12 has very few instances of this software installed. Mainly because the computer-oriented people in this project know how to keep their browsers clean of extra toolbars. Secondly, every serious project "aims to" something. When that goal is reached (1bln urls) and before it's reached, the project picks a new milestone and "aims to" it. MJ12 "has" over 1 billion pages indexed, which is much more than just the 1bln urls aforementioned, closer to hundred active nodes crawling 24/7, it complies to pretty much every robots.txt standard and "has" done what the GRUB project failed in (which by the way is still listed in Wikipedia). This is a very active project which "has" reached a lot of milestones before the schedule and "aims to" do it in the future too.
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.