Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KinoSearch


 * 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   keep. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

KinoSearch

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete Not notable or even relevant to Wikipedia. If there is an article on KinoSearch, there should be an article on every perl script ever written. Ashershow1 (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

*This AfD was not properly nominated. No notice was placed in the article, the AfD was not added to the day's list of AfDs, and the author was not informed. I am listing it as a new AfD today to give a chance for a proper discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of any form of notability. Mtking (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Here is an O'Reilly piece about KinoSearch. Also fixed Reference #1 in the article. Even though O'Reilly has an impressive reputation in computer science publishing, at this point I just don't know if this is enough, but it does create the assertion of notability. It's not correct to say there's nothing out there. And the existence, or not, of articles on "... every perl script ever written" doesn't really have any legs as a deletion rationale in an AfD. — Becksguy (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The full and detailed signed O'Reilly review is proof of notability    DGG ( talk ) 13:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. It's a blog post giving someone's impressions from (in the writer's own words) "playing with it one afternoon". It's just one source, giving what is scarcely major coverage. If by "signed" you mean that the author of the post gives a pseudonym ("chromatic") then I don't see the relevance of the fact. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG. Chromatic is actually a well-known computer book author; this is his pen name: . He qualifies under the expert exception from WP:SPS. Additionally KinoSearch got some academic citations, while not being an academic product itself:  FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, the nature of "Chromatic" wasn't clear. Thanks for the clarification. However, I still don't see that one post as constituting substantial enough coverage to establish notability. As for the so-called "academic citations", none of them that I have been able to see contain more than a simple mention that KinoSearch was used. That is not significant coverage of KinoSearch. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Charm (language) is considered notable for having as single review in Acorn User and no indication it was ever used for anything serious. KinoSearch is more more notable than that. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As JamesBWatson points out, comparisons to other articles that either exist or don't exist are generally not persuasive in an AfD per WP:OTHERSTUFF. And because of some important differences, a comparison probably shouldn't be persuasive in this case either:  (1) Charm is an historical software article; it's not about anything anyone is still seriously promoting.  (2) The article offered in support of Charm is over 1600 words and it's clearly a detailed, independent and critical review.  (3) While I removed the notability hat that I had placed on the Charm article after a PDF of the review was made available, that was just my opinion only; who knows if the article would survive an AfD with other editors weighing in because it's never been nominated.  Msnicki (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * KinoSearch also has a couple of pages in the Lucene book, in the addition to the on-line review. I didn't do a word count, but I suspect they add up to more than 1600 words. FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Chromatic column is only about 800 words. The mention in the Lucene book appears to be about the same (but without an account at safaribooksonline.com, I couldn't see the whole thing.)  But in the context of a whole 475-page book dedicated to Lucene and attempting to cover everything related to Lucene, it's just not as "about" KinoSearch as a stand-alone article of the same length would be. And, again, Charm is an historical topic with very little incentive for anyone to spam and KinoSearch is not.  Msnicki (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Alternatively it could be merged with Apache Software Foundation because it's now been adopted as Apache Lucy . FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A better place to merge is merge it is Lucene itself. The 2010 book on Lucene has a couple of pages on KinoSearch, and one page on its successor, Lucy. The book also covers some other language ports, so it should be verifiable to include this information at Lucene. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ferret search library should probably be merged there as well. FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I missed some of the search results first time around. The keep arguments by DGG and FuFoFuEd, the Lucene book, the references in the article, the Chromatic article, and many indications of use of KinoSearch, have convinced me that it's notable. As this is not a controversial subject nor an exceptional claim, the references seem sufficient to establish notability here. — Becksguy (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the coverage that has been pointed out thus far is enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources offered are not especially strong (see above) but are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG.  Msnicki (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Without any further search, I agree that notability is met by the sources offered alone - frankie (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2011 (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.