From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted because the importance of the subject is already implied, if only briefly, and includes a third party source which shows that there is more fodder for establishing importance if the article is given further time to develop. There are many more. The further elucidation and elaboration and overall required article development will come from future edits. I believe it is certainly not a speedy deletion candidate; perhaps it could more appropriately be nominated for deletion, but I would contest that as well. Nearlymiddling (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Should be deleted. The search site is defunct, gives Error 324 (net::ERR_EMPTY_RESPONSE). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

I contest the deletion because this article cannot be deleted because "5 months after the launch, the website is still not working. The "father" has been fired from the project and probably the website will never be public. It could return when the website will be relevant".

  • -The website is working, but it's still not functional.
  • -Whether the website is functional or not does not influence its notability according to WP:GNG
  • -The information about the "father" that has been fired from the project cannot be considered because it is not referenced. If you have a reliable reference (article, website, etc), the information about this fact can be added to the article.
  • -The statement "probably the website will never be public" has not have foundation. If you have reliable sources for this information, please fill this info in the article.

In the official blog there are information about recent and continuous development which are completely in disagreement with the deletion concern. For these reasons I am going to remove the Proposed Deletion template. Thanks --★ Pikks ★ MsG 21:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've referenced the firing of Marchiori from the project, there is a letter published from The official blog may not always be a reliable source for private experimental projects. At the moment, the whole article is about mere expectations, many of them have been denied directly from the source: Volunia is not a search engine, and of course it is not going to compete with the existing ones. --M/ (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution. The info you provided seems to be reliable and it can stay in the Article. is a pretty reliable source. However please consider that if a person dies, or a project stops does not automatically clear its notabiloity. This article should stay because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, thus considering the subpoints of GNG it is satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. However I do agree that the article can be enhanced. Please consider that enhanced does not mean to delete information, because the information that is there is true and meets WP:GNG and WP:V.
Here is my suggestion: Add a new section where you write in details what is happening and linking it to primary and secondary reliable sources. Please also consider that saying that we should "re-evaluate the inclusion in the web search engine list" is a bid hazardous, because there are videos and reliable sources where Marchori calls it a search engine, but only after being fired he says that it is not a search engine and the search is/will be based in Bing. We have only Marchiori as a source on this, so a primary source with Conflict of interest. Before stating something like this we would need reliable secondary and possibly tertiary independent sources. If you consider the above points, feel free to add the new section to the article. --★ Pikks ★ MsG 18:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Listing it as "Active" in the web search engine list on the upper right corner and as a general one on the main list is really strange for a web site in such an experimental, largely undocumented and probably unstable state. Several independent tests about the first version of the "search engine" defined "unripe" and at least really limited (e.g. - Since the site is still not publicy accessible at the moment, may be wiser to wait for further development of this article. --M/ (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree, however please consider that listing it as a search engine is ok, because it is confirmed by all the sources but Marchiori's last letter. For this reason it is good to mention about last letter, but we cannot consider 100% reliable what Marchiori says, because he was the first who called it a Search Engine. Having said that we should leave it marked as a search engine until it will be demonstrated the opposite. The fact that the site is not accessible to everybody does not make it a different site. Do you have some other sources from third people saying that the search engine will be supported by Bing? Or all the websites that are saying this are all quoting what Marchiori said? We can consider this info as reliable if we find other sources of information, or we can write that according to the letter that Marchiori wrote, ***. That would in my opinion be the best solution. --★ Pikks ★ MsG 12:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I proposed the deletion. I did it because I don't think that a website, still in its experimental phase, deserves a WP page. It's simply too soon. The point that it is a search engine or a scam site doesn't make any difference. --Louisbeta (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the nature of the site has no importance. What makes the site notable is not whether a website is working or is in its experimental phase, because the notability is met.--★ Pikks ★ MsG 11:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand how we can say that notability has been met around a "nothing". Everything has a advertise can have WP page? (btw, the Italian WP page for Volunia has been deleted)--Louisbeta (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from making comparisons to inter-wikis, for this reason read WP:OTHERLANGS: the fact that there are no interwikis does not mean that the article should be deleted. I hope it is now clear. In the English WP the article is more than notable because it fully meets the WP:GNG and WP:WEB criteria. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thanks. --★ Pikks ★ MsG 13:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Wait. It's not that the page doesn't exist in Italian: it has been removed for lack of notability. The media coverage is not so indipendent as you can imagine: they just repeat a press comunicate, plus they has been fooled by the idea that Volunia is from "Google's father" (who is not) Marchiori and the idea of a "Italian Google" (which is not): basically, the media just repeated a hoax from Padua University over and over.--Louisbeta (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Please check WP:GNG. According to it, the article is notable. A thing can be notable, no matter it is true or false. A big lie or a big true can be notable if they meet WP:GNG. Wikipedia has to be a source of truth, so if there is something wrong, if something change, or if something has been interpreted in a wrong way, please feel free to enhance the articles without deleting the good information that is in it. Because the information of the "Italian Google" as well as the information of the "fake Italian google" come from reliable source. So which info is really true? You have sources? Put them in the article. --★ Pikks ★ MsG 19:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
As you can see, all your writing against the website and your attempts to delete the article was completely in vain. The website already is open to everybody. Regards. --★ Pikks ★ MsG 19:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(A lot of website are online, few of them have notability from indipendent sources)--Louisbeta (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)