User talk:Alexchudnovsky

Hi there Alexchudnovsky. Thanks for participating in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine. I just wanted to let you know that a nomination on AfD doesn't mean that the subject isn't notable or otherwise encyclopedic, only that the information might not be verifiable in an unbiased manner. This ends up being a big problem with articles written by people about themselves or their own projects. Also, keep in mind that things do change over time, and an article about a small project can become notable as the project grows in scope. If the article is kept, people consider updating it from time to time. If the article is removed, please consider resubmitting it once the subject become better known. One last comment, I would be very careful about taking an argumentative stance or trying to quote Wikipedia policy until you understand the implications of your arguments. One of the cornerstones of the Wikipedia project is an assumption of good-faith editing and civil interaction between all editors, both inexperienced and experienced. You will find more support with a well crafted argument about the merits of your own article rather than trying to point out inconsistencies within Wikipedia. While you have an equal voice in building our encyclopedia, remember other editors also have valid input as well. Thanks for your understanding, and I hope you continue to contribute here. --Alan Au 04:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, but I'd like to state again that it was not me who created that article - it was not written about me, it was written about the project that I founded long time ago, if you check you will see that the article was actually created good 8 months after project went live and about 1 year after development started. My posts were more emotional than they should have been, however this was due to what I perceive as a big gap between what I heard about Wikipedia and what I actually experienced: I can understand corrections to article but nominating it for deletion quoting low Alexa rank (on the (flawed) basis of which many articles can be thrown out from Wikipedia and not doing so would certainly qualify for double standards) is something that should not even be brought as a serious arguement. alexc 12:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. You're correct that Alexa rank isn't necessarily a good indicator of whether a project is notable or not. At the same time, it does count for something (however insignificant). Unfortunately, as the project's founder, it also means that your comments can't be treated as impartial when trying to determine the subject's notability. Ideally, we'd get a larger cross-section of the Wikipedia community to weigh in on the matter. The AfD process definitely has its flaws, but in most cases the pages are clearly either notable or not. When an article like this comes along, things are a lot less clear. Sorry I can't give you a more satisfying answer, and thanks again for your participation. --Alan Au 06:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I have provided list of external articles to support notability, however that appeared not to be enough because somehow they were not liked: as soon as I have provided references, including links to Wikipedia's own info that Alexa's data should not be used for purposes of notability I started getting accusations that article _now_ was breaking other AfD rules, you can see it yourself. Its like trial in court where prosecution brings case with one accusations, it falls apart, then prosecution (which also doubles up as jury and judge) jumps to another etc, and what I find most amazing is that there is no _specificity_ in accusations, surely its not right to accuse something of breaking a list of policies without specificity of exatly what's broken there, and worse of all giving WT:SOFTWARE in a list of those supposedly broken policies and then when I quote that rule showing that _ANY_ independent article allows software to be listed (which again was not listed by me originally) then I am told that SOFTWARE is not actually a policy, then why bring it up? If this was a fair trial in court, then prosecution would not only lose their case, but also their jobs! Its _deletion_ of information we talking about here, there has got to be higher standards than those for cases which are not obvious spam, especially when there are readily available independent articles from well known sources. I am very disappointed at Wikipedia's attitude: not because its article about project I founded, but because such attitude is simply unacceptable for a place that claims to give people access to "sum of _all_ human knowledge", if that was the case then _deletion_ should not have been in Wikipedia's vocabulary. :-/ alexc 08:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]