Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seekda (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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Seekda
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No independent reliable sources about this niche software company in the article, and I am seeing nothing in a search that is not promotional. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  BD2412  T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Travel and tourism, Internet, Software,  and Austria.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  04:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Fails GNG obviously. 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 (🔔) 02:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article note: "To the best of our knowledge, Seekda is the most comprehensive search engine for Web Service nowadays. However, Seekda only provides keyword search, which makes its search quality far from satisfactory. For example, assume that a developer wants to search a Web service with the function of sending email. If he types “send email” in Seekda, the first matched Web service is a Short Message Service (SMS). If he inputs “email” in Seekda, the first Web service is for email validation." The article notes: "Seekda is currently the most comprehensive global search engine for Web services. However, Seekda only offers keyword search which leads to low accuracy. Because keyword search could not capture the users’ search need well."   The book notes: "The mission of seekda is to ease the search, interoperability and bundling of services and thus achieve a true Web of services. seekda provides a dedicated Web services search engine, featuring monitoring and invocation facilities. ... The crawler developed at seekda detects services over the Web and classifies them in an internal ontology that is maintained by seekda. Discovered services can then be annotated with semantic descriptions. The aim is to detect as many public services as possible. To achieve this goal, the crawler is focused on both WSDLbased and RESTful services. The search is not just restricted to pure technical service descriptions but also encompasses information surrounding the service, for example, HTML documents that talk about the services. This information will help in a two-fold way: to discover the actual service (and to automatically classify it) and to further annotate the service (given that the extra information about the service is available). The semantic information is then used by the front-end search engine that seekda also develops and provides to users (more in Sect. 14.2.2)."   The article notes: "Seekda is a publicly available web service search engine. It contains a good number of web services published online. It also maintains useful information of each service, such as its origin country, the provider information, a link to its WSDL file, tags, its availability, a chart of its response time in the past, a user rating, its level of documentation, etc. For most of the non-functional properties we consider in our system, we could find their values from either Seekda or the original hosting sites, except the provider popularity, the service popularity and the service cost. In the experiment, we excluded them from the similarity calculation. ... There were 7739 providers and 28606 services stored in Seekda (as of August 2, 2011). ... After removing the services with expired URLs, we finally got 1208 services from 537 providers, and each provider contains at least one service. Since Seekda started crawling and monitoring web services from 2006, the oldest service in our dataset was published in 2006."   The article notes: "Seekda’s Web Services portal provides a search platform for public direct access to web services, which can enable users to find web services based on a catalogue of more than 28,000 service descriptions. Services listed at seekda cover a wide range of functionality in map, weather, sports, shopping and entertainment etc., and can be integrated into more capacious services. At present seekda verifies if a service is up once a day, and reports a measurement of availability by means of the frequency whether the server correctly implements the SOAP protocol daily. "  </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Seekda to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * I am not convinced that this set of mentions meets WP:NCORP. BD2412  T 12:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - Despite Cunard's review of sources, this is a company and therefore needs to meet WP:NCORP. References showing notability must adhere to WP:ORGCRIT and nothing I can find does so. Even GNews only has 3 hits and GSearch shows nothing more than the typical press release, blogs, and CrunchBase type references. If the company was worthy of notice, we would see significant press coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage need not come from the press – academic sources are a perfectly legitimate means of establishing notability. – Teratix ₵ 11:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Analysis of the first two sources:<ol><li>'s abstract says, "Compared with the alternative system Seekda, it is able to obtain much higher search accuracy with keyword query (with a match rate of 2-4 times higher than that of Seekda). The custom search can achieve 100% top-3 match rate, while Seekda fails in most cases using keywords." That a conference paper for IEEE did research on Seekda strongly contributes to notability. The word "Seekda" is used 20 times in the paper.</li><li> has a chapter titled "Seekda: The Business Point of View". The chapter's abstract says, "Industry is slowly picking up on the use of semantic technologies within their systems. In this chapter, we describe how these technologies are employed by seekda, a company focused on Web services." That there is an entire chapter about Seekda in a Springer Berlin book strongly establishes notability. Seekda is mentioned 38 times in the chapter.</li></ol>It is inaccurate to call these sources merely a "set of mentions". These sources meet Notability (organizations and companies) as they provide very detailed coverage about Seekda. These sources meet Notability (organizations and companies) because they are functionally independent and intellectually independent. These sources meet Notability (organizations and companies) because they are international publications covering this Austrian company. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think by your own analysis of the first source it is a mention. The paper is not about Seekda. "Compared with the alternative system......" indicates it is simply being compared to the main topic of the paper and not about Seekda itself. And the fact the name is used 20 times also has no bearing. Curious if you were able to access the entire paper or just the abstract? --CNMall41 (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have full access to all of the sources I listed here. Notability (organizations and companies) says: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals." Notability says: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". Covering "the topic directly and in detail" (which these sources do) is sufficient to meet the notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It would have been helpful to note when first presenting the sources that the discussion of the subject went beyond the content quoted. I am more on the fence with that information. It would also be nice to see some of this added to the article. BD2412  T 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , I usually do not note that because the full text is usually available to all editors. The full text is not available to all editors for any of these sources, so I will take that feedback into consideration for these kinds of sources. I am hesitant to rewrite an article at AfD as it would be a time waste if the article was still deleted. I've rewritten the article here, however, in the hope that it demonstrates the subject is notable and moves you off the fence in supporting retention. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you think? BD2412  T 15:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: Here are two additional sources about the subject:<ol><li> The book notes: "In this scenario, seekda’s mission is to facilitate on-demand use of services over the Web. As a first step seekda is operating a search engine providing access to publicly available Web APIs. Seekda will simplify purchases across different providers and unify the use of services in bundles. Therefore, the emerging seekda portal can be a good candidate for such an independent Web API marketplace aiming to simplify purchases and transactions across different providers and to unify the usage of services regardless of their origin. "... Seekda’s products aim at creating a more transparent and accessible Web API market. The company has developed automatic means to identify Web APIs (on the World Wide Web) and has devised algorithms to enable users to find appropriate APIs for a given task efficiently. By pre-filtering the Web content and indexing Web API specific features, seekda manages the largest set of Web APIs known and make comparison easier through a unified presentation.  "As depicted in 4.1, the seekda marketplace will facilitate the trade of Web API usage in a one-stop-shopping manner—dramatically reducing procurement costs. The current market is mostly based on atomic service offerings, when completely integrated solutions are clearly needed. Seekda will address this demand by facilitating the creation of service bundles. Interoperability issues between different providers will be handled by the marketplace, which allows for a seamless switching between providers and thus reduces integration costs for the customers of seekda." </li><li> The article notes: "To be really useful, an open Web service would be able to be discovered easily by some easy-to-use search engine, perhaps Seekda (http://seekda.com). Now, this is potentially a good tool. Try, for example, searching for “hotel reservation.” You get a list of WSDL services. Click on one and you get the list of operations of the service. Click on one of those, and it asks you to fill in the strings that will compose the message and be sent to the service. This is almost practical. Except you don’t have a clue what you’re being asked to enter. Click, for example, on the “ReservationsService,” which is one of the services returned in the search. Oh, wait, there’s no description yet. Well, just pick the first one in the results list. Its description is “seems to be an internal service.” And if you click on the “Use Now” link, you have no idea what the operations do, individually or together. If you click on one of them, you’re asked to enter strings that correspond to fields that clearly want you to enter some secret codes. Even the previous “ReservationService” has operations with names like “GetRGInfo” with a single message field called “nRGID.” Seekda is possibly the best product of this kind out there. But you see the problem, don’t you?" </li></ol> Cunard (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but I still do not agree. You are pointing to GNG for some of your contention and NCORP for others. Under GNG, "There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". Covering "the topic directly and in detail" (which these sources do) is sufficient to meet the notability guideline." However, under NCORP, there IS a requirement. It is spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT and unfortunately I do not see these meeting that criteria. It likely had a great product for a brief period of time but "presumed" notable and actual notable are not the same. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Notability (organizations and companies) says: "Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability:<ol><li>Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.</li><li>Be completely independent of the article subject.</li><li>Meet the standard for being a reliable source.</li><li>Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.</li></ol>" These sources "addres[s] the subject of the article directly and in depth". The guideline does not say Seekda must be "the main topic of the source material". Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am very family with what the guideline says. I feel your definition of what constitutes WP:CORPDEPTH is not consistent with how others apply it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You said:
 * Under GNG, "There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". [...] However, under NCORP, there IS a requirement. It is spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT
 * I am not seeing anything in ORGCRIT, or NCORP more broadly, that requires a prospective source to cover a company as "the main topic of the source material", as opposed to "directly and in depth". Please point me to the specific text you believe sets this requirement. – Teratix ₵ 11:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Bad choice of words on my part. I will admit that as it does not literally say that. I am going off what it says here "Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself)" - I take that (and it has been fairly consistent in NCORP AfD discussions) to mean the company must be the main topic.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But your own quotation specifies an exception if the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself – NCORP, far from requiring something must be "the main topic" of the article in question, explicitly notes the opposite: an article with a different main topic still demonstrates notability if it devotes "significant attention" to the topic under scrutiny. – Teratix ₵ 04:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get new opinions of the rewritten article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 06:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I rewrote the article. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus in sight. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:cyan 0.0em 0.0em 0.1em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 09:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: The article is very well-written and makes the best possible use of what sources there are. But the only real source is the book in the Bibliography.  The sources Cunard provided are not about the company at all; they're just using a Seekda product as an example in studies of computing problems.  This would be like having the article on General Motors sourced mostly to the Consumer Reports reviews of the Chevy Bolt.  It isn't in-depth coverage of the company, so WP:NCORP is failed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This would be like having the article on General Motors sourced mostly to the Consumer Reports reviews of the Chevy Bolt. Sure, but in this scenario the reviews would demonstrate the Chevy Bolt is notable, no? Wouldn't this suggest the article needs to be rewritten to be about the Chevy Bolt rather than deleted altogether? – Teratix ₵ 11:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, just need to tweak the lead to focus on "Seekda" the search engine service, rather than "Seekda" the company. The sources Cunard provides convincingly demonstrate notability. – Teratix ₵ 11:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is assuming the software is notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's been more than adequately demonstrated by the sources. – Teratix ₵ 04:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment: Thank you for the insightful analysis, ! As you've suggested, I've modified the lead to focus on on "Seekda" the search engine service, rather than "Seekda" the company. Cunard (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.