Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Search Engine

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 keep without a strong consensus. Bearian (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human search engine

Disputed PROD. Original concern was

"Human search engine" is a neologism that lacks justification. ChaCha Search, the only mentioned example that has a WP article, calls itself social search not human search. Jatalla was speedy-deleted and MyShopPal and Search Amigo do not have articles. The mention of so many non-notable web sites in one article raises spam concerns.

There are now claims that this term really is used and a talk-page debate regarding notability vs neologism vs synonym with another topic arose that doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so here we are in AfD-land. DMacks (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has gotten a lot of press recently due to Jumbo Wales discussing starting such a search engine. --Brewcrewer (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The term may be in use, but the thing itself does not seem different from Social search. Maybe between the two of them, we can get a decently-cited page describing this "guided search" thing? DMacks (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would welcome any evidence from reliable sources that this term is in actual use. I originally proposed the deletion of Human Search Engine because an IP editor tried to create a new section over at List of search engines called Human Search Engines, and took it upon himself to move ChaCha Search into that section. If this is a term lacking any industry recognition, then such a change is unwarranted. http://searchamigo.net describe themselves in their marketing materials as a 'human search engine', and I believe this IP was trying to publicize Search Amigo. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both sides have valid points, but I don't see any harm in keeping it.68.163.110.9 (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan73 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC) — Wikifan73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge and redirect to social search. At best this is a subset without independent notability as of this time. --Dhartung | Talk 00:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My stance on this is well documented. All you have to do is read the Human Search Engine discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.97.74 (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have heard the term used and seen it in industry articles. I am moving the article so the second and third words are lowercase. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article does not have any notable keeping. Unless it's rewritten majorly and not wrote like a news site it will be better. If it is kept, it requires major cleanup. Jac_roe^Blank 21:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I seem to recall alot of press on human searches... IIRC AskJeeves had that feature. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It is a very new subject, information is coming up soon. Let us see what is coming up. Randomxa (talk) 14:31, 26 November 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.