Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seekda

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. Neil ☎ 10:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seekda

This article got deleted a couple of times in the process of creation, citing A7 and G11. This was largely improved in fact so a deletion review was filled. There were some suggestions to afd the article instead in order to generate a wider consensus. So here we go. --Tone 20:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Tone 20:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: version at time of AFD nomination→permalink --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article that makes subject notable. First source not comprehensive and second source in German. Still reads like an advretisement in places. Hammer1980·^talk 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second source is in two languages (either switch the locale or select language in top bar). Can you also be more specific and point me to these parts, which read as advertisement so I can get them fixed. Mzaremba 09:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now about which particular source you talk. I will do some search for other English sources. Anyway I must say it is quite difficult to come with English sources in a country, which does not speak this language. Mzaremba 09:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unremarkable company. There are millions of websites out there and this ones certainly not notable. Sting_au Talk 10:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I give a try below to justify that this is the remarkable company and the subject is notable, as the proposed innovation aim to enable the web of services (as envisioned by Semantic Web research community, by open SOA and in particular by Semantic SOA; the vision, which has been presented in many scientific publications, but not yet realized, although attempted, by commercial companies). Please let me know if the information below could get included in the article, or it will again qualify it as an advertisement.

Asserted remarkablility is irrelevant, notability and sources are important. WLU (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Existing solutions for Service Discovery include UDDI and ebXML registry, standards that allows programmatically publishing and retrieving a set of structured information belonging to a Web Service. Several companies have operated public UDDI repositories (IBM, SAP, Microsoft, etc), however due to several shortcomings of the approach such as complicated registration, missing monitoring facilities, its success was limited and only few repositories are still publicly available. At the same time a number of Portals (wikipedia is providing articles about several of them e.g. Strike Iron) dedicated to providing a repository of services have appeared. However, all of them rely on a manual registration and review process, which implies limited coverage as well as inherently outdated information. Alternatively one can use the classical search engines; however they do not provide effective means to identify Web Services. For now, there exists no standardized file suffix, such that a query like "filetype:wsdl" does not match all service descriptions (e.g. the wsdl description Microsoft Services will have the ending ".asmx?wsdl"). Moreover a standard search engine does not make any pre-filtering based on availability and other service-related parameters. Their retrieval model is optimized for finding content and not dynamic services.Mzaremba 13:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is original research without sources, and will not help the page. WLU (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can add that into the article if you want. You currently have two votes to delete and only one (yours) to keep. Not a lot of people rushing here to have a say on the matter? (that says a lot about the notability) The whole article reads like its been copied from a brochure. Is it a neutral point of view encyclopedic article? Not yet in my opinion. I suspect you may have some personal involvement with the company? Not that that's a bad thing mind you. If the article stays plenty of other editors can come along and add to it and that's when the "spin" starts to disappear. I'm sorry but my vote to delete still stands. It has improved a bit since I first tagged it with a speedy though. See if you can drum up support to add some "keep" votes? Sting_au Talk 12:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussions are not a vote, deletion is based on reference to policy. WLU (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. But I never even tried to hide that I am not involved with the company or that I have been working for the research organizations, which carried out work related to current innovation of this firm. It is enough to check my nickname and list of people on the company website. But please do not tell me that the profiles of hundreds of other companies and organizations, which can be found on wikipedia, have been created in such a collaborative process as you mentioned, and additionally to it, they have been created purely by external contributors, because I will not believe in this. I also do not see "plenty of other editors" editing articles of other smaller companies. Anyway if there is a notable innovation (what I am trying to show in here), wikipedia keeps these articles, and I would like to happen the same in here.

WP:WAX - other pages are completely irrelevant to this discussion. WLU (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, what I am trying to prove now, is that this article is notable and I am asking you for comments and suggestions how it can be improved to meet appropriate standards and to stay on wikipedia.

Greetings Mzaremba 14:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some more arguments which make this article notable:

This company offers basically a new approach to what is described at Web Service Discovery]

It is notably since other approaches like Universal_Description_Discovery_and_Integration, which I have mentioned already above have been discontinued for publicly available Web Services Microsoft UDDI shutdown

As noted on wikipedia entry for Web Service one requirement for Web Services architecture is a broker or search engine. This service is provided by seekda. It is similar to XMethod (also referenced from Web Services wikipedia page, what can be also classified as advertisement) but of a much broader scope (about 30 times as much services). So actually it should be seekda referenced on Web Service as the most comprehensive engine available in the world (already more than 16K services indexed and monitored).

Greetings, Mzaremba 14:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does the "OG" stand for in Seekda OG? I see you have the article title as Seekda but having Seekda OG in the first sentence? There are also three red links further on in the article. These are, SOA4ALL, Service finder and Service detector. I think having them as dead links looks terrible. I'll tell you what. If you can explain those terms on the actual article page (there's no need to create pages for them just yet) I will change my vote to "keep". No need to reply on my talk page as I am watching this page. Sting_au Talk 21:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OG stands for Offene Gesellschaft, which is a legal form of company in Austria (I do not think it is smart to make a translation). That is why I removed it in the first sentence, but still keep it as a type of the company in the box form. I will extend the abreviations for project names as requested. Thanks. Mzaremba 10:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as is, none of the sources assert notability, none appear to be independent of the entity, none appear to be reliable and none are substantial. <2200 hits on google, the majority are the company's website, and the first wikipedia website to pop up is, amusingly, the deletion review. How does this page pass WP:CORP, the only criteria that matters? The only that comes close is the conference presentation, but that is hardly substantial. If the entity becomes notable, no prejudice against re-creation, but should be on a sub page first to avoid re-visiting the deletion debate. If it truly is notable, the page will be created eventually. Right now it's not, and even the sole reference for an assertion of notability (focussed crawling) doesn't appear to justify the statement. WLU (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to give a try and challenge these arguments. First you claim that almost none of the sources is independent from entity. I almost have to agree (with a couple of exceptions) with this particular statement. If you take a look into domain registration of seekda, you will find out that it happen just a couple weeks ago. If you check the blog on the website, than you will learn that the service went online only four weeks ago (although available from June 2006, so more than a year with limited availability). That is why I referenced DERI and STI (and also a couple minutes ago I added two scientific projects) to show that the results and innovation available through this company are actually the compilation of several years of work of many (in case just of DERI, we talk about hundreds) scientists coming from various contributing organizations. Please do not than search for seekda, but search for DERI, search for names of founders of this company (just to mention prof. Fensel, who is the most cited computer science professor in Austria and the major driver behind semantic research in the world), search for WSMO (Web Services Modeling Ontology) and in particular for wsmo mediators or wsmo composition (which are realized in products of the company). I did not list all of them in the body of the article, so not to be accused again of advertising something. If somebody will feel to add it in the future, than he/she will do it.

Today/Tomorrow I will select the list of the most relevant publications (I will try to find even something that mentions focused crawling) and links which explain innovation and then the notability. But please be aware that seekda name will be not on them, as seekda is absolutely a new name given to something that existed for a long time solely in scientific projects. Answering yesterday to Sting_au I have already made a quick search for a related work in context of seekda innovation (or rather research behind it) to other articles in wikipedia and tried to show why seekda in this context is notable (e.g. seekda finally succeed to put an infrastructure for brokerage of services, which Microsoft or IBM admitted to fail).

Greetings Mzaremba 10:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing quickly, I made one typo. I mean not STI, but STI2 or STI International, or Semantic Technology Institute International (or alternatively STI Innsbruck, which is the branch of STI International) Mzaremba 10:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page still does not pass WP:CORP. I see no reason to change my reasoning. New source does not even mention SeekdaWLU (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We must be taking about some different sources. STI Innsbruck website mentions it in at least two places. You have an info on the front page about it, and in the spin-offs section. Additionally to it, you have links to projects and working groups whose results and ideas have been exploited to build this first global web services search engine. Just to only mention selected (seekda name cannot be found there, because the name did not exist at the time when these documents get accomplished, but other keywords/names from the article can be found there): WSMO Web Service Discovery; Focused Crawler for Web Service Discovery; WSMO Discovery Engine; WSMX Discovery. You will find many references to related work through standardization organizations e.g. W3C WSMO Submission; WSML Submission; WSMX Submission or in OASIS OASIS SEE Technical Committee. I can come easily with hundreds of other links, which reference the work done (including cited scientific publications), anyway as I said before the name seekda came just recently to label a commercial entity which is build on the top of the innovation done by DERI, WSMO, WSML, WSMX, OASIS SEE TC and many, many other research projects (several of them listed at active project and archive projects pages of STI Innsbruck, but of course you can find on google hundreds of independent to STI articles referencing these projects and work.

I know that you said already, that other pages are completely irrelevant to this discussion, but anyway I must notice it, that there are so many pages of other companies on wikipedia, which hardly provide only a link to their own website(s), and actually admins are not challenging their notability. This is my first experience with editing an article on wikipedia and I am really starting to get upset about the whole situation. I was really expecting to get a constructive support to get things through, but so far except with a few exceptions, it is the other way around. I want to get a notable article on the wikipedia relating to fact that the work on the first global search engine for web services get accomplished and there is a commercial company taking over the research results. There are a couple of reasons, why this is notable, what I already showed, when making a reference to already existing articles on wikipedia (I can support this arguments with references to scientific publications or various specifications). I provided now several references, which if find relevant, will get included in the article. Is there anything else I could do, or I am simply wasting my (and yours) time.

Greetings Mzaremba 15:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of company articles up for deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it apperas to have enough reliable sources to document notability. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2007 (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.