Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qksearch


 * 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 of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lok s hin 00:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Qksearch
Qksearch is a search engine. So I searched for it using another well-known search engine and found about 900 hits. But that is a bit of an over-estimate, since some of these are individual "qksearch.htm" pages etc. Nothign on Google News, no evidence of innovation, widespread use, user base, Alexa ranking >200,000 (higher than expected, but compare with the majority of well-known search engines, which are in the top five thousand (or in some cases the top ten). Not everybody can be Google, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 22:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per JzG. -- Saberwyn 09:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC) . Abstaining. I now realise I don't know as much as I should to comment. -- Saberwyn 09:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per JzG. Stifle 09:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As a regular user of this metasearch engine, I am a little disappointed. In my opinion, when people make a suggestion they should be well informed about the topic they are commenting about. In this case obviously the difference between a so called major search engine and a metasearch engine and how to compare them. And to pass a judgement just by searching Google should not be a benchmark for assessing the quality. Definitely not being too much influenced by medis buzz only. May be the best judgement would be to do some research searching and compare the quality of results; and obviously to do so one needs to understand how search engines work and how to evaluate the quality of results.
 * keep Anaras 09:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Relisting for more useful discussion. Note how this is possible without the use of garish red ink? -Splash talk 01:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment It may be the best search engine in history but untill it has some sort of impact on the internet there is no way to determine that - as such it is IMHO unencyclopedic untill it does assert itself. Celcius 02:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Per above Celcius 02:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: If this article is deleted, QKSearch should also be deleted.  F e  tofs  Hello! 01:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag_of_Texas.svg|30px]] 02:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:WEB. --AaronS 03:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  16:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Both articles Qksearch and QKSearch are useful, although I think they should be combined. Just because a product isn't popular/widespread should not be a reason to remove an article.  I vote for keeping this article and then merging it with the QKSearch article.--Kaze0010 19:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. User has 8 edits, all but one being to HexIt and its AfD and here.  (The other was to hex editor.  -- Rory 0 96 00:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Oh, and his edit to hex editor was just adding a link to HexIt. --  Rory  0  96  00:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. At first glance these past two comments appear to be downgrading my opinion as that of a newbie.  I've edited/improved other pages on Wikipedia over the past 2 years albeit anonymously (I could provide some of the IP addresses I used to edit from for proof).  I created a user account yesterday because I read voting under a user account carries more weight.  I am in agreement with the reasons listed on Notability regarding "Valid content is deleted" and that "Obscure content isn't harmful".  It appears that others (strongly) disagree with me on this and the HexIt article.  I think Wikipedia is better off being more inclusive on content than exclusive. --Kaze0010 07:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The page to which you refer is neither Wikipedia policy nor guideline. It is an essay stating the opinions of other editors. -- Andy Saunders 16:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * QKSearch as written was blatant spam, I have now made it a redirect. Just zis Guy you know? 13:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete both this article and QKSearch. Just not notable enough yet. -- Andy Saunders 20:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. FCYTravis 22:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It meets these Notability reasons for not deleting (being kept or merged): "Valid content is deleted", "Obscure content isn't harmful", and "Deletion reform is necessary". --Kaze0010 22:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Rory 0 96 00:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete spam for a non-notable search engine.
 * Delete spam --MaNeMeBasat 07:08, 10 March 2006 (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.