Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvester42 (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Harvester42
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A defunct university search aggregator project. There's no independent sources at all - the whole thing is supported only by a couple of research papers by the group that created it; seven years of waiting for a single reliable source is more than enough. There's no evidence that this was ever widely used or had any influence on anything. Now the site itself, and that of the researcher who made it, is gone. A 2008 AfD (when the site still existed) was closed as no consensus. This entirely fails WP:GNG generally and WP:WEB and WP:ORG specifically. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 14:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 14:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete In my opinion, the "no consensus" conclusion of the administrator at the end of the previous deletion discussion was erroneous. The only thing that kept the previous discussion from being solid "delete" !votes (other than that of the article's creator, Ivo) was Pharmboy's discovery of the Pubmed database, whereupon he changed his opinion to Keep and Tcrow777 agreed with him. Neither Tcrow777 nor the administrator took notice of my observation and that of Yobmod that being indexed by Pubmed is no more evidence of notability of an academic project than being indexed by Google is evidence of the notability of a website. WP:ROUTINE was applicable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm kind of amazed that this didn't get deleted the first time. I could find no valid references. And the article itself has no refs and doesn't make much sense. The first sentence in the intro is: "Currently no search engine covers the entire internet." How does Google not "cover the entire Internet"? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2015 (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.