Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvester42


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Harvester42

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Every research project at every university is not notable, and the article doesn't indicate why this particular project would be notable. Largo Plazo (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment...harvester42 is an article about a meta search engin like many other articel in the wikipedia ...i really can´t understand why ...this "deletion-war" is going on right now..this is definitle AGAINST the spread of knowledge...i write for the wikpedia for several years now....somethign like this i have never experienced...i am confused.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivo (talk • contribs) 19:00, October 4, 2008
 * Wikipedia is not meant to be a compendium of all knowledge about everything in the world. Notability is considered an important attribute of the subjects of Wikipedia articles. I saw your article and have doubts about its notability; your article didn't give me any reason to view it as any more notable than thousands of other research projects or meta-search engines in the world. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Change below Delete The problem is simple, thousands of people are working on "the ultimate search engine". Please refer to Google's stock price over the last 10 years for a reason.  That this is called Harvester (get it, it takes answers from other search engines, how original) or 42 (the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything) is meaningless.  Has anyone (that passes wp:rs) written anything interesting about them?  If not, then this particular project, one of thousands, isn't particularly notable enough to be listed whilst the others (sadly) are not.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 19:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * i can´t believe what i am reading. a single person. i am sure Mio of projects are not worthy for you..that does not mean that you have the right to delete it...some people might be interested and are....although this is not up to discussion...the word harvester comes from "bioinformatic harvester" http://harvester.fzk a bioinfomatic search engine...used (by the way by 1000s of scientist every day...we have been asked for a tool to to the same iframe trick for normal search engines..harvester42 runs on machine 42 ...as i said i...
 * What "single person" are you talking about? This is a forum for discussion in which as many people as are interested will work toward a consensus over the next five days. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * can you please give me a contact person..a higher admin maybe? to settle this? if contributed a lot to wikipedia in the last years....and NEVEr exerienced such an aggressive behaviour...AGAIN...it is NOT what YOU think about a project...there are really other people on this planet...really :-D Ivo (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a forum for settling this. This is normal Wikipedia procedure in cases like this. Please stop the drama and indignation. They won't help you in the slightest and will turn people off, which won't be in your favor. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * COMMENT Please show us a link to these other people who think the project is so important, preferably if they pass the policy of reliable sources here at Wikipedia, and we will be glad to change our opinions. You aren't special, you have to offer citations like the rest of us do when creating articles.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 19:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * :-) can i just say..please go ahead and do whatever you think is right....yeas you are right..i am not special...sorry for trying to convince..damn i made a mistake .-) ...have fun..and don´t be evil :-) Ivo (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you paying the guilt card? Even after I explained to you (on your talk page) that making your case in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines can be effective but drama won't be? Well, you still have nearly five days to come forth with suitable evidence of notability, if it exists and should you choose to make a constructive case for keeping the article. If you can, why won't you? &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what he is saying is being said in good faith. I think he just stepped back a little bit and realized that he was trying to wp:OWN the article previous, and now realizes our efforts were not personal.  We all have been guilty at least once of trying to own an article we created.  He is saying "[sic]yeas you are right" so let's not bite his head off.  Someone may yet provide sources anyway. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 20:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well&#8212;you and I have different filters for that kind of thing. :-) I was picking up on the "sorry for trying to convince". But you may be right. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I note that the same editor has contributed a couple of articles on other search engine type things with similar names. Now, if one of those is NOTABLE, maybe this one is too, by some kind of association? Or maybe none of them are? At least one looks like it has external refs, at least. MadScot (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as notability can not yet be determined. Merge/redirect to Search engine per improvements.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The only thing, I can't find ANY sources that are remotely independed on this engine, not even blogs. None.  Not sure that a redirect or merge would be appropriate if we can't offer any proof it exists.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 22:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I just tried several different search approaches myself and came up with zilch... maybe I would have had more luck if I used Harvester42. If existance could be assertained and notability shown a redirect would have sufficed. My bad. And I have modified my position accordingly. And a note to User:Ivo... Wikipedia is about verification... making certain that what is within these pages can be proven per WP:V, whether we like the information or not.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete tried what you just suggested, with no better results, except pages in their lab site. . When there are some sources, no reason not to try again. But, meanwhile, you say you've got an important bioinformatics search engine that's in wide use--and i suppose that therefore might have references for it--so why not try an article on that one?  It could even include a sentence to this more experimental version. DGG (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP :-) Ivo (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Harvester42 use the "bioinformatic harvester" methods (see "bioinformatic harvester" project (try this one on google). comment: so i just realized ..if something exists on Google..IT exist. if something is NOT on Google it doesn´t ...AUTSCH ...:-) ok added the original "harvester reference paper" and some updates.. ah by the way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScienceDaily) one of the fines news sources for scientific informtion on the web with lots of awards and stars...not much of an article, but more than worthy to add....


 * Changed to KEEP now I tell you one damn thing, you are persistant! This is actually a good thing.  It is easy to just complain but you went and found some very hard to find references on a topic that is very difficult to source out, and at the end of the day, I think that you have changed the article enough to clearly make it notable enough for inclusion.  My original assumptions were really off base, and I stand corrected.  I would hope others who voted to delete would please look at the sources.  Still not the heaviest sourced article, but not every topic can have easy to quote text from the New York Times.  Great job.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 16:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. For all the edits that have occurred, the only changes I see are (1) the addition of more specific information about software, which doesn't affect the question about notability; (2) a literature section that lists two papers by the project team, again not pertinent to the question of notability; and (3) a reflist that you added and that is empty because the article has no inline references. I see no more indication of notability than there was when I posted the AfD notice. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The literature is enough as it lists the entire Harvester concept, published on a u.s. government website, pubmed.gov (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) which tells me it isn't a home spun "better" search engine. The empty ref section was added only because I also said in the article talk that he needed to work in some inline citations, just a format issue, not notability.  I am not saying it doesn't have ISSUES, I am just saying it has enough notability to dodge a bullet in AFD and be tagged for more work.  This kind of stuff is very hard to source to begin with, and one solid source from a US government site (on a german search engine technology) is enough to establish notability, to me and is 100x better than what existed before.  If you don't agree, that is ok, too.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 17:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's "published" on that government website in the same sense that every website indexed by Google is "published" by Google. They're passing through the results of a search for academic papers that leads to this. The real citation should be what's shown at either NCBI or Science Direct: the article was published in the journal Methods in Enzymology, volume 404, pages 19-26. I haven't check the WP guidelines for academic papers accepted for publication by academic journals&#8212;publishing a paper you've submitted isn't the same thing as reporting independently on your work. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You seem to have misunderstood the Pubmed.gov site. It contains databases of millions of papers from certain subject areas, it does not indicate that the US government have taken any notice of anything, or published anything. From the site: "Through PubMed, you can search 16,000,000 biomedical journal abstracts. PubMed Central is a database that contains whole research articles from over 300 research journals. "Yobmod (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Am i being blind, or are there still no third party independant sources in the article? The papers are inherently NOT independant, as they are written by the inventors. Pubmed.gov is just a database site, listing all the papers from the journals it covers - it lends no notability to those papers, any more than being found on google means a website is notable.Yobmod (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why I myself think a merge would work now as its existance has been verified. If moved over to Search engine it has context and can always be pulled out for an independent article if notability is sourced.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - at this point, there is nothing notable about this project, nor is there anything of significance about it that warrants a merge to search engine. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Pharmboy. Tcrow777Talk 08:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.