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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    • 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)

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
  • 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 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
  • 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. 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)

[edit] Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine

[edit] DO NOT DELETE