Talk:AppleSearch

====

Untitled
To be included in Wikipedia, you must show that a company meets WP:CORP and software meets WP:SOFTWARE. All articles must meet WP:N and WP:V. Also, no original research is allowed per WP:OR. Check these policies out. If you provide this information via citing appropriate third-party, unbiased references from reputable sources, your article will not have a problem. Mattisse(talk) 12:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You have failed to address any of the questions I had about your drive-by tagging. Instead of answering these issues, you have simply added some sort of boilerplate that could apply to any article, none of which appears to apply in this case...
 * WP:CORP obviously doesn't apply. This article is not about a company.
 * WP:SOFTWARE could apply, but doesn't. The software in question was a major release from a major vendor, mentioned in all the trade rags, and even the topic of ACM articles. The code continued to be used in other products (which have their own pages here in the wiki) after the product as a whole was no longer offered. One of these, Sherlock, is quite famous, by any definition.
 * WP:N fails for the same reason (actually, WP:SOFTWARE is essentially a WP:N subcase)
 * WP:V fails for the same reasons. AppleSearch was widely talked about in the press.
 * WP:O could apply, but you offer no examples, nor was this one of your original complaints.


 * None of the items above have anything to do with the original four tags you added to the article. Yet now you put up a deletion notice. I ask again:


 * 1) What do you feel is non-encyclopedic about the article in terms of formal tone?
 * 2) What part do you feel is reads like an advertisement?
 * 3) What part do you feel is not covered in the quoted reference?


 * I would be more than happy to fix these problems, but you need to tell me what they are.


 * Maury 15:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Then it sounds like the solution is to merge the article with Apple Computer or redirect it to there
That way you would not have to come up with multiple, credible, reputable, unbiased outside links as you do now as an independent article. That might be preferable. Mattisse(talk)


 * How would this article possibly be merged into Apple Computer? This is like suggesting that the article on Microsoft Word be merged into Microsoft.
 * I'm sorry, but I still don't see any reason that you originally tagged the article, and you still haven't offered a single argument in your defense. After the first time you even suggested the article be deleted as a result! After the second time you make this "suggestion".
 * Frankly, I'm inclined to simply ignore your complaints, because they appear to be completely spurious. Unless you can come up with something a little more cogent, I'm going to consider the matter closed. Maury 19:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge
Disagree. Way too much information, though a link from Apple Computer to this page would be a good idea. It's currently sort of isolated. TomTheHand 20:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand
I'm getting rather tired of your edits, Mattisse. I have asked you on several occasions to point out exactly what your complaints are, but to date you have refused to do so. In the three exchanges so far you have simply invented some other set of complaints instead of answering the questions I asked. One might conclude that you have no basis for your complaints.

In your latest series you have scattered "reference needed" throughout the article. As I have pointed out twice now, once here, once on the article's talk page, the references have been provided. If you could be bothered to read the ones I included, you will note that every place you inserted a "reference needed" is covered in one of the four linked documents. In fact, one of them is the actual software that you stamped with a "reference needed" for its existence!

You appear to have started with good intentions, but your behavior since then appears to be driven largely from hubris.

Maury 14:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maury, the article would benefit from in-line citations. I believe that's what Mattisse is requesting.  Yes, the information in the article is from the sources at the bottom, but what information is from what source? TomTheHand 15:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The citation issue
I was reading your talk page because you have sent me some very odd notes, one just today. It seems that you really do not understand the issue about citations. I see that people are trying to help you grasp the issue and that is very good. It is nice of them to make the effort to spell things out clearly to you and even find the citations for you. NLOleson 20:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)