Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sixearch

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 for lack of reliable independent sources. Fram (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sixearch[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Article was speed'd twice. Non-notable software. Keeps coming back. Now it has three references, all are articles written by the developers. No independent third party references can be found. Looking for another delete with salt please. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and season, results limited to forum threads and nothing even close to an RS Travellingcari (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I left a notability tag and a few User talk messages, but couldn't get any appropriate response from the main editors of the article, User:Illuminated and User:Lewu. This article came to my attention when Illuminated added it to List of search engines. Stuff shouldn't be in that list if it's not a genuine search engine with a real user base, something that requires reliable sources that have taken notice of the search engine. Hence the appropriateness of this AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK.. There is no need for salt here. So from what you said getting published does not count as a third party approval then. This is unfortunate... In this case, if you plan to delete it again, please at least leave it till Tuesday (US time) and I will either remove it, defend it or improve it. BTW how big is the user base to be considered as notable? Is there a guideline for the number in Wiki?

For the record, the second delete was done before I even finished writing the article. I don't know that you can't leave an article hanging for couple of hours. I took a break, went home and it was deleted before I finished my dinner. :( Glad to see people working hard on cleaning Wiki though. (This is a compliment not a sarcasm.) Please don't get a wrong idea, I'm not trying to spam Wiki here.

To EdJohnston: The an anonymous contributor, 75.60.173.151 who removed the notability tag was me, my login time expired so it didn't log my name.

Illuminated (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have edited the article to highlight aspects of the project that may constitute evidence for notability. This is a collaborative network designed to support context-aware, adaptive, social search and a mature prototype application that supports the network has only been released publicly in recent weeks. This explains the small number of google hits for the query 'sixearch' since this name was only adopted with this recent prototype. Previously the sofware was known by the original project name '6s' or '6search' however it is difficult to determine the hits since these are not uncommon terms. Since this network is completely decentralized, it is also difficult to determine the number of users. We can only determine the number of users who have volunteered to participate in a user study. I believe this number is in the order of 100. I also added information on NSF funding and awards. The IBM award was based on a proposal to leverage UIMA to extend 6s. I can add that i have been invited to give presentations about sixearch to at least 10 academic meetings around the world in the last few months. Sixearch is considered a major example of 'social search'. Hence it was appropriate to link this article from the 'social search' section of List of search engines. If it is determined that these factors do not constitute sufficient evidence to establish notability, it would be useful to know what would be considered appropriate for a decentralized system like this, for which no usage statistics are yet available. Thanks.

Fmenczer (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC) — Fmenczer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment - the awards and the grants you referenced do not mention the software at all. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why wouldn't this be appropriate for the 'non-commercial use' section of Social_search, much like the University of Minnesota's MovieLens page under Collaborative Filtering. There's very little information on the social search page to begin with.

--Jjdonald (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)— Jjdonald (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment - because the "if that can be here then this should be here" argument does not apply. The article needs to establish notability. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with regards to the notability motion- Sixsearch is a growing research project at Indiana University. It has a burgeoning user-base across departments and name recognition within the web mining and social web academic sphere. This software represents as viable, notable development project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.106.32 (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice you think it is notabile. Now please show us independent third party references that help establish this per the notability guidelines. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sixearch has been continually developing and improving since 2003 and it already has many users in various areas. With a limited number of existing social search application, Sixearch is the only example of using the unstructured approach (without using any distributed has table or ontology). I think, for a non-commercial (not self-promotion) open source application like Sixearch , which also has proven its notability by published many papers in conferences and book chapter, it is appropriate to include it in the Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewu (talk • contribs) 07:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC) — Lewu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep For the same argument above and one more thing. Just because the article was speed deleted twice does not make this version not appropriate for Wiki. Illuminated (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and that is why it was brought here and not speedied again :) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no reliable sources independent of the subject covering Sixearch. -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any third-party sources to assert that this is notable software. Support salting the article title, given the history of re-creation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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.