Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structured search

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. consensus is clear enough. No objection to recreation with better content. DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Structured search

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}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

About the best that can be said of this is that it is a longer article than that which was deleted after the previous AfD discussion. But this still more of an essay than an article and provides absolutely no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eveidence of notability provided at the end of the article Do not delete. Kandreyev (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question to RHaworth How many evidence of notability should be provided? I have put 6 different sources that discussing different aspects of Structured search. Text search technologies web site have a whole section about structured search. Would it be enough evidence? Kandreyev (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)kandreyev — Kandreyev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect to XML retrieval. Structured search is more commonly called structured retrieval -- see, for instance, the Stanford IR book. The most common kind of structured retrieval these days is XML retrieval and the most common query language for XML retrieval is XQuery. So there is a real topic lurking in here. But this essay-ish article is a WP:COATRACK that seems to promote Mikhail Gilula and his patents rather than describe various approaches to structured retrieval. The best course of action may be to redirect this to XML retrieval until a better article can be written. --Mark viking (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—The resurrected article once again exists to promote a patent; it needs to go. Mark's suggestion is intriguing. I have no objection to a redirect, but I'd like to see a few more cites before I support that option. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: All references to any patents removed so it looks like this argument is not valid anymore. Kandreyev (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. I believe the topic may be notable, but would substantially benefit from having someone independent write it.--Laun chba ller 08:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If topic is notable why do you want to delete it Launchballer? Please provide your arguments.Kandreyev (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per RHaworth rationale. Although I strongly agree with “Launchballer” per the subject notability but I think its necessary to blow it up and start over Wikicology (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Wikicology (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion by Wikicology admin RHaworth[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Do not delete: the article is interesting and the subject is more notable than of many other articles - just look at the number of sources. It has nothing to do with XML. If you delete this article - you have to delete many other ones... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.174.124.171 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 28 October 2014‎)— Bourbon7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

* Leave it - Learned a thing or two. Don't see any reason to delete...Pages like this make WIKI better not worse --SearchPro1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SearchPro1 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC) — SearchPro1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do not delete: Structured Search has nothing to do with XML (of course XML format could be used by concrete implementation but not the only one).Kandreyev (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)kandreyev — Kandreyev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
To Mark viking: Structured Search focused on search - results could be structured or unstructured. "Structured retrieval" focused on retrieval (means transmission) of search results. Different implementations of Structured Search could use different formats to transmit search results. You could not mix this two terms. Please read Structured Search article :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by kandreyev (talk • contribs) 04:06, 28 October 2014 — Kandreyev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- NOTE: I believe "retrieval" her do not mean transmission, but something more like "find again". The word retrieve is commonly used like this, for example in Information retrieval and Document retrieval. Runarb (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Do not delete Certainly notable. Improvement required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.18.111.244 (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

* Do not delete- structured search is quite notable, well written, do not see any patents, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.75.121 (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2014‎

* Do not delete: It helps to understand search categories and approaches. It also helps to understand Google's Tech talks on structured search. The term is not perfect and could evolve over time, but for now there seems to be no better word for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.103.8.12 (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2014‎

* Do not delete- Structured request makes this approach different from the most other search techniques. It could be a good addition to search engines concentrated on the structures in search results data.199.16.127.226 (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm somewhat concerned at the influx of new accounts and IPs that have posted on this page and/or at the article, so I've opened up an SPI here. To anyone coming in, if you were asked to vote on this AfD, please understand that deletion is not decided on a vote but on the weight of the arguments given. You can only show notability by providing coverage in reliable sources (WP:RS) that specifically mentions the concept of structured search. While I do see that there are some sources on the page, we don't have any links to the books themselves to verify that the specific term "structured search" is covered in the text. A search in the Handbook of Mathematical Logic does not bring up "structured search" and I'm somewhat convinced that most or all of the sources given do not actually specifically cover the article topic. Please be aware that unless the sources specifically cover the specific term/technology, anything else is seen as original research. Not only is OR considered to be inappropriate for Wikipedia in general, but it also cannot show notability. As far as other arguments go, saying that something is useful (WP:ITSUSEFUL), that you particularly like it (WP:ILIKEIT), or that other articles would have to be deleted if this one goes (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) are not considered to be valid arguments for inclusion. You have to back all of this up with reliable sourcing because simply saying that we should keep it will do absolutely nothing- you have to give the RS to show coverage. You could have 100 people come on and say that the article should be kept, but unless they're providing sources and arguing for inclusion in ways that do fall within policy (and all of those arguments require RS), those arguments pretty much mean absolutely nothing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tokyogirl79 for providing arguments but your arguments are questionable. For example Handbook of Mathematical Logic was published in 1982 and I am not surprised that college handbook of 1982 does not bring up "structured search". Regarding your suspicion that "the sources given do not actually specifically cover the article topic" I would like to ask - What is your level of expertise in the data search technologies? What is your degree level? --Kandreyev (talk) 08:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)kandreyev[reply]

Original research is original research. A source must specifically mention the topic at hand in order to bestow notability, otherwise we have to assume that it's WP:OR. Sources can brush up against the basic ideas of the topic, but unless they explicitly mention the topic we cannot use them to show notability. That's the way it's been on Wikipedia for years now. You might be able to use it to back up the most basic ideas such as "in the 1980s this is what it was like" but you cannot use it to show notability for the current status of structured searches. It just doesn't work that way as far as Wikipedia goes. It may work for a paper on the topic, but showing notability on Wikipedia is not the same thing as backing up ideas in a research paper or journal entry. I can't stress that enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT if there is something to this. (And though Nikolaus Pevsner probably knew several priories, in this context I'm surprised to see "known a priory". Google Books shows several examples of the latter in the most surprising places.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

==================== PARTICIPANTS WITHOUT WIKIPEDIA ACCOUNTS! ====================
Please add your name and place as your signature.

TO JamesBWatson Hi James, In US we believe in a freedom of speech. By blocking somebody's opinion you are hurting basic human right - freedom of speech. I do not see any reasonable arguments in this discussion - emotions only. It looks like somebody wants to re-write this article for a money. Sad. I used to like wikipedia but never donate. I felt bad about it but not anymore. I agree with you Bourbon7 - most of the editors on this page just attack without arguments.Kandreyev (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)kandreyev[reply]

To A-B-C-Watson: Yes, when you are unable to provide arguments – just attack the people: strike their writings, burn the books and the then the people. You provided me with an excellent story to tell to my students. You also saved me money – I will never donate to wiki again. Have a good day! – Bourbon7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.75.30 (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm moving this to the bottom, as all new statements should go below the nominator's AfD argument. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm moving this to the bottom for the same reason Tokyogirl79 (all new statements should go below the nominator's AfD argument.)Kandreyev (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I am striking six comments by unambiguous sockpuppets of Kandreyev. (Two sockpuppet accounts and several IP sockpuppets)> The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that username (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. - Note: An editor has expressed a concern that username (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. - I do not have any puppets. Kandreyev (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)kandreyev[reply]
Delete - Not present in multiple independent reliable sources. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My anonymous friend. Why do you think that "Multiagent System Technologies" is unreliable source? Did you read the article? Thousand of scientists and engineers all over the world recognize this publication as a very reliable source. JamesBWatson truly believe that all participants without signature are my sockpuppets. Is't it great? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandreyev (talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 November 2014 (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.