Deletion of Structured search

Comment: I'm somewhat concerned at the influx of new accounts and IPs that have posted on this page and/or at the article, so I've opened up an SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kandreyev|here. To anyone coming in, if you were asked to vote on this AfD, please understand that deletion is not decided on a vote but on the weight of the arguments given. You can only show notability by providing coverage in reliable sources () that specifically mentions the concept of structured search. While I do see that there are some sources on the page, we don't have any links to the books themselves to verify that the specific term "structured search" is covered in the text. A search in the http://books.google.com/books?id=b0Fvrw9tBcMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Handbook+of+mathematical+Logic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jtpRVKLGL4OdyQTxjYLQBw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=structured%20search&f=false Handbook of Mathematical Logic does not bring up "structured search" and I'm somewhat convinced that most or all of the sources given do not actually specifically cover the article topic. Please be aware that unless the sources specifically cover the specific term/technology, anything else is seen as |original research. Not only is OR considered to be inappropriate for Wikipedia in general, but it also cannot show notability. As far as other arguments go, saying that something is useful (), that you particularly like it (), or that other articles would have to be deleted if this one goes () are not considered to be valid arguments for inclusion. You have to back all of this up with reliable sourcing because simply saying that we should keep it will do absolutely nothing- you have to give the RS to show coverage. You could have 100 people come on and say that the article should be kept, but unless they're providing sources and arguing for inclusion in ways that do fall within policy (and all of those arguments require RS), those arguments pretty much mean absolutely nothing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:ITSUSEFUL||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: per . I believe the topic may be notable, but would substantially benefit from having someone independent write it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: per RHaworth rationale. Although I strongly agree with “Launchballer” per the subject notability but I think its necessary to  low it up and start over|blow it up and start over
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B)

Comment: to XML retrieval.  Structured search is more commonly called ''structured retrieval'' -- see, for instance, the http://nlp.stanford.edu/IR-book/html/htmledition/xml-retrieval-1.html Stanford IR book. The most common kind of structured retrieval these days is XML retrieval and the most common query language for XML retrieval is XQuery. So there is a real topic lurking in here. But this essay-ish article is a  that seems to promote Mikhail Gilula and his patents rather than describe various approaches to structured retrieval.  The best course of action may be to redirect this to XML retrieval until a better article can be written
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)