Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resort (talker)

Resort (talker)

Resort (talker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DELETE. Subject fails general notability guidelines, there is a lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Resort, as I amended the article with additional links and details to illustrate more clearly, holds an important place in the history of early internet culture. Resort, and its own popularity, predates the popularity of the web. Resort is a direct predecessor of modern social networks, instant messaging, and MMORPGs. It's been in operation for over fifteen years, has been used by tens of thousands of people, and is widely considered the most popular talker of its kind of all time. Fox (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC) — Afoxson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I get the impression this is part of a larger WP:WALLEDGARDEN. While I thank you for any amendments you may have made to the article, there still are no reliable sources covering this subject to speak of. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
    • At the very minimum, BBC and the referenced book are reliable sources. Notability should be interpreted relative to the context of the subject matter. You're dealing with an internet-based topic whose heyday predated the popularity of the web. Therefore, while reliable sources are certainly referenced, it's unlikely that a plethora of coverage exists. There may be additional coverage to be found, but that means more research should occur, it doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Further, this is not a walled garden. While Foothills, Surfers, and Resort all started with roughly the same code base, they all had different user bases, different staff, different cultures, different focuses and features, and all evolved in their own separate ways. Google, Yahoo, and DMOZ all have categories for Talkers, in which Resort is at the very top of every list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afoxson (talk • contribs) 05:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
      • The problem is that Wikipedia is not intended to be a publisher of original research or thought, and the BBC reference only mentions the subject in passing (one sentence) thus does not meet the bar of non-trivial coverage. I will leave this up to the closing administrator to decide but ideally we need more. Lots more. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
        • The primary purpose of the BBC article is to cover Talkers, of which the article explicitly identifies the Resort as the most popular of. The Resort is not a passing reference, it, along with its contemporaries, are the entire point of the article. That article was created by an independent third party and was peer reviewed as per their editorial standards. Fox (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. There is a reasonable claim to notability, however the article currently doesn't have reliable sourcing. In regards to the BBC article - this is part of the h2g2 project (described here), which is not a reliable source. From what I can see of the Internet Games Directory it is only a simple listing, which cannot be called significant coverage. If there is better sourcing than this then I would be more than happy for the article to be kept, but at the moment I just don't see it. Quantpole (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The BBC is a reliable source as it's a well-known news organization whose h2g2 project has well established and accepted editorial guidelines (at the link referenced above, see 'Contributing'), including peer review of contributions. The Internet Games Directory book definitely has more detail on this topic, it's just that that Google book search is only exposing the link. Fox (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • h2g2 is not 'the BBC'. it is user submitted content hosted by the BBC. Peer review is done by other anonymous editors. They don't get an expert in each article to vet it. In the same way that wikipedia is not a reliable source, neither is h2g2. They might be slightly more picky over what appears in their edited guide, but that is only like limiting wikipedia visibility to good or featured articles - they are still not reliable sources. As can be seen from this link the guy who wrote this particular article got most of his info from ewtoo.org, another source which cannot be considered reliable. If the IGD 'definately' has more detail than can you tell us what that is? I am rather unconvinced by all these arguments at the moment. If this was such a fundamental part of the history of online communication and the internet, then it would have been covered by reliable sources. There are thousands of books and scholarly articles written about the rise of the internet and so on. If this is truly notable I would expect there to be some coverage out there, and it shouldn't be hard to find. As such I am saying Delete. Quantpole (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
    • See me comment below on the BBC, which I've addressed in full with respect to the reliability of the BBC's h2g2 project. Second, the researcher from BBC/h2g2, a reliable secondary source, got info from ewtoo.org because it's a reliable primary source. ewtoo.org is owned by Michael Simms (Grim) [1] who was one of the core developers [2] [3] [4] [5]. His contributions are clearly referenced in the 'LICENSE' file within the source code's tarball [6]. Wikipedia's policy explicitly states: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources," which "rely for their material on primary sources". More to the point, it's blatantly obvious that they (BBC/h2g2) care about the facts because two other people that the researcher is working with there, in the thread that you reference, are primary sources as well. "Jonathan" ran Foothills for years, and "Ath" is short for "Athanasius", i.e., Neil Charley, both also core developers. Wikipedia policy also clearly states that "the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies," "should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources," "the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source". We're talking about a Talker here, not some religious figure. Nothing in the article is contentious, disputed, nor exceptional. A lot of the coverage out there is spread amongst Resort and its contemporaries, for example, I recently discovered many more significant references for the talker Foothills, one of Resort's predecessors (which was just deleted [7]), that I added to the deleting administrator's talk page [8]. It's troubling, in the extreme, that Talkers, despite their long history, despite their thousands of users, despite many still being in operation, despite thousands of references to them, are systematically being wiped off the face of Wikipedia, one by one, all at the behest of JBsupreme. I do not understand how it could possibly even remotely be in Wikipedia's best interest to deprive the general public of this information, that is obviously both factual and noteworthy, just because they haven't been written up by pulitzer-prize winning journalists working for the New York Times. Fox (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Lack of coverage in reliable sources means it is not notable. Really quite simple. Quantpole (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
        • This subject has coverage in reliable sources. Specifically, an amount of coverage commensurate to the subject matter. See my comment posted on '17:44, 22 March 2010' for further detail. Fox (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we need to take a step back here. Wikipedia itself strongly cautions against militaristically applying guidelines. After all, guidelines are not laws, and were intended to be interpreted with common sense and within the context of the subject matter. This is one of the reasons behind the multiple subject specific guidelines for notability. This particular subject is nearly two decades old and predates the popularity of the web. How much historic reporting can one reasonably expect on a topic whose popularity preceeded most news organization's existence on the web? Of that, how much of it can one reasonably expect not to be a sea of 404s? How much current reporting can one reasonably expect on a dated, yet important, technology of yester-yester-decade, from news organizations that have a proclivity for focusing on the topics of today? This topic is obviously notable enough to merit its own article. It's existed for nearly two decades, is still in operation, and has touched the lives of literally tens of thousands of people from across the world. If that's not notable, I don't know what is. Countless friendships have been made, marriages have been formed, all as a result of people meeting on Resort. It's clearly a topic "worthy of notice" and a topic that has been "noticed" to a significant degree by the world at large. Look past the letter and more toward the spirit of the notability guidelines. Wikipedia's "golden rule" is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". How can Wikipedia's best interest be served and how is Wikipedia possibly being improved by deleting an article that not only represents an integral part of early internet culture, that is neither fleeting nor insignificant, but also has touched so many people, globally? Fox (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research are firm policies, not guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete I doubt the claims being made, and there are no valid sources to back them up. Dream Focus 11:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Resort is widely regarded as one of the most, if not the most, popular talker of all time [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and has been visited by tens of thousands of people from across the world since its inception.

• How can it be the most popular of all time, if its visiters are numbered in the tens of thousands? There are older programs that have millions of users. And shouldn't Cnet or some other such site have mentioned it at some time in their long history? Dream Focus 11:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It's only claimed that it's the most popular Talker, amongst other Talkers, which is supported by the multiple references in the article. Remember that Talkers are an older text-only technology, popular in the mid 90s, well before the internet had tens of millions of users. Tens of thousands of users at that time was a lot of people :) And it has been referenced by other sites, for example, the BBC. Fox (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • That is misleading/untrue. It has not been "referenced" by the BBC, it has been referenced by the BBC h2g2 project, which is a UK-based Wiki, much like Wikipedia. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
      • This is DEFINITELY NOT misleading/untrue. The h2g2 project is an official project of the BCC [9]. The h2g2 project is administered by BBC employees [10]. The h2g2 project is not "much like Wikipedia"; It's contributors need to be registered [11] and its contributions require multiple levels of peer review [12] [13]. Wikipedia's own article, the one that you yourself reference, on h2g2, clearly states that h2g2 "has been run by the BBC since 2001," "It is often compared to Wikipedia but there are differences between the sites," "Following at least seven days' reviewing, Entries in Peer Review may be recommended by a volunteer Scout and accepted by the in-house team. When this happens, a copy of the Entry is passed to a volunteer Sub-editor for fact checking and general tidying, followed by a brief check by the in-house team" and "Articles written by Researchers form the 'Guide' as a whole, with an 'Edited Guide' being steadily created out of factual articles that have been peer reviewed via the aptly-named 'Peer Review'". The h2g2 article in question clearly appears [14] within the peer-reviewed Edited Guide. Fox (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
        • [[15]] -- It pretty much is Wikipedia with a few cosmetic differences. In the case of the "article" being used as a source for this subject, it is user-submitted content, not an actual BBC article or anything. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
          • User-submitted content, submitted by a registered user who agreed to be bound by h2g2 editorial rules and the general BBC terms and conditions, peer reviewed and fact checked by multiple vetted reviewers, recommended [16] for inclusion by a senior reviewer who does additional fact checking, approved after even more fact checking by the in-House Editorial Team, who are BBC employees, and yet additionally fact-checking by editors. This entire process can take anywhere "from three weeks to two months" [17]. Once approved, the article may not be edited by the author; It must go through another review process. At this time, a linksearch for h2g2 results in one-thousand, seven hundred and ninety one Wikipedia articles. It seems to me that h2g2 is a well-used and well-accepted source [18] amongst Wikipedia articles. Let's examine Wikipedia's policy: "the more people engaged in checking facts...scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication". Since h2g2 is extensively peer-reviewed, over a lengthy duration, by multiple people, in multiple phases, by both BBC employees and independent researchers, it meets this criteria, and is therefore considered reliable. Also: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The BBC/h2g2 is certainly a third-party and its fact-checking process has been exaustively detailed here, on Wikipedia, and its own site. Additionally: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process". We're talking about a Talker here, yet I don't see a lot of consideration to the context. Finally, conversely, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." h2g2 has a vast amount of editoral oversight and checking of the facts [19]. Accordingly, BBC/h2g2 clearly meets Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. Fox (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per Afoxson/Fox above. The type of sources used here are not published books by academics or articles in the NYT, but the subject matter is fairly arcane and isolated to the online world - one has to weigh that in, the sources are appropriate for the topic. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foothills (talker) (essentially the same issues and type of article and sources and should be looked at as a whole). Green Cardamom (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Furthermore, the "Non-commercial organizations" criteria of the "Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations" section of WP:ORG, specificially WB:CLUB, states "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards": "1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale," and "2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources." Resort's activities are international in scale, having serviced, and being accessible to users from all over the world. Information about Resort and its activities are easily verifiable by third-party, independent, reliable sources, because the service is still in operation, and the Resort's administration would be delighted to participate in any verification activity undertaken by a third-party, independent, reliable source, should it be found desirable. Fox (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - about.com, a New York Times property, has a paragraph [20] on Resort. Fox (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Interesting that Warren Hutchinson, Experience Design Director at Universal Music Group [21], is reminded of Resort [22] while listening to a lecture by Sir Tim Berners Lee, the man credited with inventing the world wide web. Fox (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete h2g2 is light years away from being a reliable source, per comments made above; the Hutchinson quote above is a one-word mention in the blog of a wholly non-notable person; the existing sources in the article don't pass RS. This leaves us with about.com or, more specifically, results.about.com, which is a human-maintained search engine that spits out suggested links to typed in queries with a short 2-3 sentence description of what one might find at the link. Anyway, that this is the best anyone appears to be able to muster (and I certainly can't find anything else) is very telling. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - You're simply repeating/citing other people's arguments WP:PERNOM without providing any substantiation whatsoever of your own WP:LEADER. BBC/h2g2 is not a Wiki [23]. BBC/h2g2 guides may not be submitted anonymously. BBC/h2g2 guides may not even be edited, outside of a formal update system. BBC/h2g2 guides are peer-reviewed and fact-checked. BBC/h2g2 guides are edited by editors. BBC/h2g2 guides come under the scrutiny of the BBC in-house editorial team, who are BBC employees. Indeed, Wikipedia's own article on h2g2 states "most are correct and well-written treatment of their subject matter by virtue of the Peer Review process". The author of the guide in question is not only a BBC/h2g2 researcher, he's also a BBC/h2g2 Guru and Sub-Editor, since 2002. The identify of the author of the guide [24], an IBM Manager and Lead Engineer, is well-known. Wikipedia WP:V states "peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources," "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts," and "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed". All three of these statements describe BBC/h2g2. Fox (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I must have missed the part where other people discussed your new "sources." ...oh, wait, I didn't, because nobody else had. Not sure what you're talking about with the WP:PERNOM stuff, and not sure I like your tone, particularly given that it's a completely inaccurate depiction of my post from above.

  Re h2g2, you are repeating yourself, too. That I don't have anything new to say regarding h2g2 doesn't make my comment more or less valid. It has nothing to do with being a reliable source. The phrase "peer-reviewed" you use above doesn't cover h2g2. If it did, it would cover Wikipedia as well, insofar as my postings on Wikipedia are "reviewed" by "peers." The phrase "peer-reviewed" generally refers to, I dunno, the Journal of Science, or what have you. Assuming you have no new, actual, reliable sources to add, and are simply going to continue arguing that h2g2 is a reliable source (which is a non-starter of an argument -- if you want to save this article, my good faith counsel to you is to find other sourcing, not argue that h2g2 is a source capable of conferring notability), my vote remains and will remain Delete. I'm sorry. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Thank you very much for your comments. I'm now seeing where the confusion lies. You're under the impression that the h2g2 peer review process is somehow comparable to the the way Wikipedia operates. This is not the case. Whereas in Wikipedia, anyone, even an anonymous individual, can create and edit (most) articles at any time, in real-time, with h2g2 peer review means that before an article can merely even be just considered for inclusion, it must pass a lengthy waiting period wherein it's commented on and fact-checked by researchers. And even then, it still may not even be selected for inclusion, but if it is, it undergoes even more fact-checking by actual employees of the BBC editorial staff, not h2g2 staff, BBC staff. Once posted, a guide may not be edited, except by again going through the same process. Fox (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - A NYTimes article [25] referencing an h2g2 guide for more information. Fox (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - BBC/h2g2 used as a citation in over two hundred books [26]. Fox (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - BBC/h2g2 used as a citation in a Register article [27]. Fox (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - BBC/h2g2 used as a citation in Guardian articles [28] [29] [30]. Fox (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - With respect to the MUD Connector source [31], it's been recognized by the New York Times [32], has been referenced in over 50 print publications [33], and has received over 50 research citations [34]. Fox (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you Afoxson for pointing out where h2g2 is being used as a citation. Unfortunately, and you may already be aware of this, an even greater number of books make the unwise decision to actually cite Wikipedia as a source in their texts. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Just because some books make an unwise decision of citing Wikipedia doesn't mean that these books make an unwise decision citing MUD Connector. Fox (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Per our own "Reliable sources noticeboard" the response there was not to use H2G2 as a source for Wikipedia entries, see: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_23#H2G2 I would tend to agree. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    • There was no verdict, nor debate. Two people were involved in the discussion, each with a single comment. The first commenter, when stating "some of it is not [peer reviewed]" was referring to the non-edited guide of h2g2. Resort is listed in the peer-reviewed edited guide [35]. The second commenter likens it to a wiki, which I have exhaustively shown that it is not. It's quite clear and unfortunate that neither one of those two commenters did any appreciable amount of due diligence or research. Given the overwhelming evidence that I have presented voluminously throughout this thread, it is incontrovertible that BBC/h2g2 is a reliable source. Fox (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Given that all you do is edit or debate other articles about talkers (many of which are now deleted) I don't know how you can justify such a claim. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Question for Fox - If you don't mind me asking, what is your personal involvement or connection to this and other talkers? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per the lack — with the search term: "Resort" "Foxson" (Adam J. Foxson is one of Resort's creators) — of reliable sources in Google Books. The links in the article are mostly unreliable sources, none of which establish notability. h2g2, which produces user-generated content, is not a reliable source. Resort (talker) fails Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 06:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hi Cunard, thank you so much for your input. Unfortunately, due to the nature of what we're dealing with here, the problem is that a single search term only isn't going to be sufficient to find sources. I may not be referenced under my full name, it may be my Resort name, or my email address (or an old email address), for example. I may not even be referenced at all, a source may have referenced one of the other founders, or members of the administration, or even superusers. Resort may not even be referenced directly as Resort, Resort may have been referenced by one of the hostnames it was hosted on over the years, or one of the IP addresses it's been hosted on over the years, or even its website (or an old website address). Finally, I would be interested in knowing the precise reasons why you feel h2g2 is not a reliable source. Would you be willing to detail your reasons individually please so we can discuss them all point by point? Just to address the one point you've already brought up: While h2g2 content is indeed user-generated, it is subject to a formal editorial peer-review and fact-checking process, in addition to ultimately needing to be approved after additional fact-checking by actual BBC editorial staff. Fox (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)