Wikipedia:Deletion review/Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine

The following discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Majestic-12_Distributed_Search_Engine

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majestic-12_Distributed_Search_Engine

Well, I am confused as to how to add article for deletion review, apologies for not getting it right from the first attempt, please feel free to edit it to make it inline with format of the page :-/ alexc 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: No problem. The formatting is fixed. You still need to give us the rationale behind your request for review. And please don't regurgitate the AFD discussion. Please show what new evidence should be considered that was not available during the discussion or what failure of process you believe occurred. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The request is due to strange situation that even though there is clearly was no consensus for delition of the page, it was actually deleted and provided evidence was completely ignored. I was advised to post here by mediator as it provides opportunity for other admins to have a look over discussion and respond. Talking of new evidence there will be an article published in 3 weeks in a monthly IT UK magazine about the project, for obvious reasons I can't provide link/scan to it since it will be published in 3 weeks. alexc 01:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Only one keep vote from a historied user as far as I can see, and despite multiple input and comments from the creator of the project (alexc, the requester here) I see no evidence to contradict my original nomination - A distributed web crawler project with an Alexa rank of >40,000 - and guess what? Wikipedia is the top site linking in. Currently in alpha. Lots of "aims to", not much "has" Just zis Guy you know? 10:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I am speechless. alexc 11:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see why. The evidence you offer above is also "will be". The entire thing has an air of speculation about it. Why not just wait until you've got a released version? It's not like there is a deadline to meet. Wikipedia is not here to promote that which may be notable, it's here to document that which already is. Just zis Guy you know? 14:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I have nothing further to say on the subject apart from that I am grateful for providing me with such a valuable experience: as the result of it one of very few policies for us will be that in our project individuals (me or anyone else) won't have such power to decide for others if some web page is worthy to be deleted (effectively censoring information that end users see), unless it is obvious spam or owner requested it. Thank you and goodbye. alexc 18:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete "Only one keep vote from a historied user as far as I can see" - No, there were three KEEP votes from (historical) users. See the votes from User:BarkerJr, User:Nsaa, and User:Zyron. Although I think this article will materialize after a while. In a better and more neutral way with more than one (neutral) external references (in English). I'm a bit confused and a bit angry that this kind of information is deleted. Why? There has been given at least three references to media coverage (although only one/two in English). And then the main reason for deleting it is Notability. My understandig of that concept is weird since I think Majestic-12_Distributed_Search_Engine was notable. I looked up this project when I first read about it in the news (Norwegian Digi.no article). Hoping for some neutral information and different viewpoints (typically for Wikipedia in areas with diverging viewpoints). Now its just deleted by far as I can see some far fetched concepts about notability and not working project (it is in full operation with search possibilities last time I checked the site). Nsaa 22:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Don't worry, Alexc: if your hopes for this engine materialize, it will be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia has to be careful not to provide articles for projects, people, etc. that haven't yet firmly established themselves. You have begun to make a case for notability, but several articles in non-English language nations, and a speculative article in the Guardian don't yet add up to notability in the English-language WP. Coverage in blogs isn't considered reliable, because it is very hard to rate the editorial integrity of a blog. Just interpret this result as a "not yet"; it isn't a "never." For what constitutes "notability", see Wikipedia:Notability; for the nature of what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, see WP:RS. Endorse closure Valid AfD on the basis of evidence provided. Xoloz 15:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Xoloz here. The project seems to have a lot of potential, and is fairly interesting (I might sign up; not like my connection is doing all that much.) But as of right now, it just doesn't seem to be notable enough, and the prospects of future notability aren't enough. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and all that. But in a few months, who knows? --maru (talk) contribs 17:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. While the keep votes were indeed few and mostly from new users, the deletes weren't that numerous either, had little justification beyond "nn, delete", and were mostly made in the beginning of the debate before references were provided and article was improved. As far as I'm concerned, neither side has made a convincing argument nor established consensus — the nomination mostly deteriorated into endless bickering with little substance. In my opinion, with no disrespect to Sam intended, the proper closure under the circumstances would have to have been either "no consensus" or relisting. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist. Essentially I agree with Ilmari Karonen, above. I have the additional to contribute. The Guardian article quoted makes the following statement: "Majestic-12's volunteers - 60 so far - are crawling about 50m pages a day using unlimited broadband connections and software that runs in the background. Over the past few months, 7bn pages have been crawled although, ...". At 7bn pages and a rate of 50m a day, the crawler software its self could be argued as notable, and it could be argued as justifiable to place a reference to it within the Web_crawler page.It would seem strange in that case for ( a toned down ) version of the original article to be regarded as vanity or spam? Lilstevey 17:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore this article, please. --Melancholie 03:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Closer's comment: The sources provided were addressed in the discussion - I saw no reason to believe that the people who made comments before further posts wilfully disregarded 'new evidence'. And as Guy said, the article itself was all "aims to" and no "has", and even if The Guardian verifies that you "aim to" do something, that isn't a claim to notability. On the other hand, this encyclopaedia is on the Internet, so if something to do with the Internet gets kept - even if, had they been playing guitars instead of crawling websites, the article would have been deleted as 'up-and-coming band, come back when you release your second album' - I can't really do much more than shrug. I wouldn't mind a less... long-winded discussion taking place to get a clearer consensus, whichever way it went. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted) for now. It's premature to have an encyclopedia on this particular topic. Please remember that we are an encyclopedia - a tertiary source by definition. There isn't enough independent material yet on which to base this prospective article. As an encyclopedia, we are in no rush to include content. We have no need to scoop anyone. Reconsider the topic for recreation of the article after it has clearly achieved notability. Rossami (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist for reasons given above. Silensor 22:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist if necessary to obtain a clearer consensus. Yamaguchi先生 22:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Definite Overturn and relist. The original VfD linked to above looks like a 50/50 split, far less than the required majority for deletion. +sj + 07:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Relisting Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.