- 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. 2-2 headcount; a number of sources presented that haven't been questioned; no consensus must be the result. It would be very helpful if the new sources and relevant material in the sources could now be added to the article. Mkativerata (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DataparkSearch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find any significant coverage that shows that this software is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep DataparkSearch is discussed in the following scholarly articles:
- "Open source search and research" in Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Research issues in digital libraries. Abstract: "In this paper, we present a review of criteria for the evaluation of open source information retrieval tools and provide an overview of some of those that are more popular." Since this article is behind a paywall, I will quote the relevant part: "DataparkSearch is an GPL-licensed open source system for indexing and searching a Web site, group of Web sites, intranet, or local system. DataparkSearch is built on top of a relational database, which must be installed separately."
- "Open source libraries for information retrieval" in IEEE Software. I don't have paywall access to this article at home, but I do at work.
- Update I read this article at work. It is a dense five page article which compares and contrasts five open source search engines. It has a significant description of each engine. A notable characteristic of DataparkSearch is that it is the only engine of the five that can be used with Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Thai languages. Abstract: "We all use search engines to browse the Internet or our desktops. But how can we engineer such functions professionally into the applications and systems we build? Vesna Hassler of the European Patent Office has looked into several open source libraries for indexing and information retrieval, which you can use for application and system development. She compares a variety of criteria, such as query structure and ranking, and provides useful hints on installation and security as well." — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The need for website search engines: Choosing a software implementation" in IADIS International Conference e-Society 2007. — HowardBGolden (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. One of several open source web search engines. Being listed in lists of such search engines does not amount to substantial coverage. Open source does not get a free ride. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:MILL is an essay. It is neither policy nor guideline. Its points are not accepted by many commentators. It is not a basis to delete anything. In any case, WP:MILL doesn't apply to open source search engines, because they aren't run-of-the-mill. First, there aren't very many. Second, each has significant features and differences as explained in the scholarly article I cited above, "Open source search and research" in Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Research issues in digital libraries. If there aren't WP articles for each of the engines in that article already, someone should add them. I believe that Smerdis of Tlön needs better ammunition to "kill[] the human spirit" in this case. — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per Howard. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.