Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing: Difference between revisions
m Archiving closed debates |
Archiving closed XfDs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing/archive Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/DeletionSortingCleaner |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spectral Hash}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spectral Hash}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1541 Ultimate}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1541 Ultimate}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushka Wirasinha}} |
Revision as of 11:44, 23 June 2010
![]() |
Deletion Sorting Project |
---|
|
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Computing. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Computing|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Computing. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg/32px-Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg.png)
Purge page cache | watch |
Computing
- 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 delete. Theoretical notability based on a number of major publications isn't enough when the article is fundamentally unsourceable. ~ mazca talk 12:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Karen Fredricks
- Karen Fredricks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Autobiography without any third party sources. Has authored a number of books, but I don't see any indication that they have received much attention. Leivick (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep. The number of books listed at World Cat Identities and the fact that they are published by a reputable publisher is a positive indication of notability. Being specialist Dummies guides, they are unlikely to attract much in the way of mainstream reviews. There may well be reviews in the specialist press. More problematical for me is that the article has been written by the subject and has a promotional tone. I would suggest stubifying and keeping but I can't say I feel strongly about it. I have just tagged for the computing Project. Perhaps someone over there might take an interest--Plad2 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep' - author of a dozen how-to guides in a popular series. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is an unsourced BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The number of books i9n a major series from a major publisher is notability enough. I removed the advertising for her and her company. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete No third-party sources, only authored a few books of notability, she is not notable as an author and has not received any acclamation or praise for her works. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 23:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete This is an unsourced BLP. This requires sources. Since there appear to be none this must be deleted as BLP is a policy and trumps AUTHOR. Spartaz Humbug! 05:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all articles must be supported by independent, reliable sources of which there are currently none in the article, nor have any been mentioned in this discussion. The 'Keep' "votes" above argue that she is notable based on her writing even in the absence of sources covering her. In another context it may make sense to use such heuristics as firm notability rules, but given that the article is a BLP I can't see keeping it in the absence of sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:BIO, and we can't keep a BLP without sources. Claritas § 09:51, 10 July 2010 (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.
- 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SafeStick
- SafeStick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is a paid-editing piece developed through a conflict of interest via this request on freelancer.com which reads "We need help copywriting a text about our company, BlockMaster, and our products for wikipedia. BlockMaster provides a solution for protecting portable data – a secure USB flash drive and a management console. We need someone who can understand high-tech descriptions and who is very familiar with how wikipedia works. Deadline Fri, June 18th."
Wikipedia is not a medium for companies to promote themselves. This also appears to have sparse notability, as most of the references are to press releases and I am unable to find significant discussion of this product in multiple reliable sources. This is nominated alongside another article created via this job, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlockMaster. ThemFromSpace 15:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Just to be safe. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Goes completely against Wikipedia policies as well as the spirit of it. Paying people to spam Wikipedia is just not on.
- I still believe, that the product which is claimed (by such a reliable source as eWeek magazine) to outperform its competitors (which have articles in Wikipedia) has both the right and the need to be presented here, no metter what the motivation of the main contributor is. User: pozytyv (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2010 (Kyiv time)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination, Promotional intent is obvious: a secure USB flash drive that protects data with hardware encryption and mandatory password security.... Article is nothing more than a features list. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Agreed with all points made. Etrigan (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:46, 21 June 2010 (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.
- 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BlockMaster
- BlockMaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is a paid-editing piece developed through a conflict of interest via this request on freelancer.com which reads "We need help copywriting a text about our company, BlockMaster, and our products for wikipedia. BlockMaster provides a solution for protecting portable data – a secure USB flash drive and a management console. We need someone who can understand high-tech descriptions and who is very familiar with how wikipedia works. Deadline Fri, June 18th."
Wikipedia is not a medium for companies to promote themselves. This also appears to have sparse notability, as most of the references are to press releases and I am unable to find significant discussion of this company in multiple reliable sources. This is nominated alongside another article created via this job, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SafeStick. ThemFromSpace 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination, and probably salt just to be sure. The references provided are all to minor trade publications with small audiences and do not establish any historical, technical, or cultural significance. And if somebody got paid for this, it's safe to assume that's the best they could come up with. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Goes completely against Wikipedia policies as well as the spirit of it. Paying people to spam Wikipedia is just not on. Nuwewsco (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I still believe, that the company which product is claimed (by such a reliable source as eWeek magazine) to outperform its competitors (which have articles in Wikipedia) has both the right and the need to be presented here, no metter what the motivation of the main contributor is. User: pozytyv (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2010 (Kyiv time)
- Delete per nom. Etrigan (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. (Although I would see nothing wrong with someone paying for non-spam articles following Wikipedia policy.) Tomas e (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2010 (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.
- 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. –MuZemike 23:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spectral Hash
- Spectral Hash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable cryptographic hash function with limited actual usage. KTC (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 04:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability is based on mention by sources (which this has, from NIST), not on the amount of use an algorithm sees. Nor is WP the right body to judge its quality. We should quite rightly have an article on bubble sort too. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the two references linking to NIST are primary sources, and do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. We're not here to judge the algorithm, but rather it's notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then are you going to delete NIST hash function competition too? I cannot see any way to separate the notability of the competition, and that of its lesser-known entrants (some, presumably the winner, might well go on to further notable things). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the notability of the conference isn't relevant here, per WP:OSE. What the lesser-know entrants may do in the future is also irrelevant, per WP:CRYSTAL. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You've failed to comprehend my point. You wish to reject the two NIST refs for Spectral Hash. Are there still refs for NIST hash function competition that wouldn't have to be rejected by the same criteria? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I don't know, I glanced at the NIST hash function competition article, but haven't evaluated the sources, since that's not relevant to the discussion here. It may well be that the NIST hash function competition is notable, perhaps it is not--but in either case, the notability of a competition does not confer notability to all of it's participants. The Boston Marathon is notable, but most of the runners aren't. Also, I do not "wish to reject the two NIST refs", I'm just pointing out that since those references are the presentation of the algorithm, they do not establish notability per WP:GNG. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I'm failing to understand your point. I'm happy to agree that NIST hash function competition is notable, but the majority of the refs in that article (I don't have time to dig) are no more (and perhaps less) secondary sources for that article than the two NIST-published refs for Spectral Hash. Now IMHO, these are all adequate refs for independence, quality of authorship and avoiding the issues of primary sources - so both articles stand. Whilst the first NIST-published ref for Spectral Hash is authored by the algorithm's authors, the second is little more than a conference schedule and list of entrants, authored and published by NIST. That isn't a great ref for detail, but it is IMHO a strong ref that a contest happened, and that Spectral Hash took part in it. That is as much, IMHO, as we need to demonstrate to show notability of it, sufficient to pass AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I'm not saying that the NIST hash function competition is notable, so I'm not sure what you mean by agree. If the references for that are no better than the ones in this article, notability is probably in question for that article as well. But that's not relevant to the discussion here. The fact that Spectral Hash was part of a competition does not establish it's notability. Do you really believe that the references constitute significant coverage? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see at least one independent RS that attests to its existence (and its entry in the competition). I consider that enough. Now strict policy calls for "multiple", so in the absence of time to look for further ones (and this encyclopedia would be better if editors spent more time in the
Google:
namespace and less arguing in theWP:
namespace), I have no real answer to that. However I'd regard that as a churlish reason to seek deletion of an extant article on a useful topic (hubris in algorithm design) and I'm sure that other refs are out there, should anyone have time and effort to look for them (I expect there's more discussion of the flaw and its demise than of its initial release). Whilst a mass run like the Boston marathon might not convey notability on its competitors, some more selective contests do. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Comment, I still don't see significant coverage in any of the references. We disagree, it happens. As a side note I point out that "more" doesn't list all participants, and many listed including winners are redlinked, "selective" lists winners (many of whom are redlinked), and contests lists all participants but there are a lot of redlinks there, too. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but again, WP:OSE. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see at least one independent RS that attests to its existence (and its entry in the competition). I consider that enough. Now strict policy calls for "multiple", so in the absence of time to look for further ones (and this encyclopedia would be better if editors spent more time in the
- Comment, I'm not saying that the NIST hash function competition is notable, so I'm not sure what you mean by agree. If the references for that are no better than the ones in this article, notability is probably in question for that article as well. But that's not relevant to the discussion here. The fact that Spectral Hash was part of a competition does not establish it's notability. Do you really believe that the references constitute significant coverage? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I'm failing to understand your point. I'm happy to agree that NIST hash function competition is notable, but the majority of the refs in that article (I don't have time to dig) are no more (and perhaps less) secondary sources for that article than the two NIST-published refs for Spectral Hash. Now IMHO, these are all adequate refs for independence, quality of authorship and avoiding the issues of primary sources - so both articles stand. Whilst the first NIST-published ref for Spectral Hash is authored by the algorithm's authors, the second is little more than a conference schedule and list of entrants, authored and published by NIST. That isn't a great ref for detail, but it is IMHO a strong ref that a contest happened, and that Spectral Hash took part in it. That is as much, IMHO, as we need to demonstrate to show notability of it, sufficient to pass AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I don't know, I glanced at the NIST hash function competition article, but haven't evaluated the sources, since that's not relevant to the discussion here. It may well be that the NIST hash function competition is notable, perhaps it is not--but in either case, the notability of a competition does not confer notability to all of it's participants. The Boston Marathon is notable, but most of the runners aren't. Also, I do not "wish to reject the two NIST refs", I'm just pointing out that since those references are the presentation of the algorithm, they do not establish notability per WP:GNG. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You've failed to comprehend my point. You wish to reject the two NIST refs for Spectral Hash. Are there still refs for NIST hash function competition that wouldn't have to be rejected by the same criteria? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the notability of the conference isn't relevant here, per WP:OSE. What the lesser-know entrants may do in the future is also irrelevant, per WP:CRYSTAL. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference with bubble sort is that it is notable from where it is taught / mentioned by lots of courses, books, tutorial etc. The only notes with this algorithm is its entry into an open competition. Just because the competition is notable doesn't mean one of its entry (which didn't get very far at that) is. The notability requirement requires multiple independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. The sources for Spectral Hash does not fulfil this requirement: 1) Not independent as it's the presentation of the algorithm by its designers; 2) Not significant coverage as it's merely the timetable listing of the 1st conference; 3) A paper co-authored by one of the co-designer talking about hardware implementation so not really independent; 4) Less about the algorithm and more about an attack on it. KTC (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It seems this article is being used as a resume-builder for Gokay Saldamlı, Cevahir Demirkıran, Megan Maguire, Carl Minden, Jacob Topper, Alex Troesch, Cody Walker, Çetin Kaya Koç. It's a "new family of hash functions" (their website) with really no third-party significance. — Timneu22 · talk 11:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Resume building" would seem a little odd when this has function was so quickly rejected as insecure! Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This has notability due to being selected by NIST for the first round of the competition, and independent sources in the form of discussions of the competition, despite the fact that it's not a very good hash function. Compare FEAL, a completely insecure block cipher that is also unquestionably notable. Yes, it could use more direct sourcing in the article itself, but those sources exist. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What "independent sources in the form of discussions of the competition"? If you have sources, please bring them to the discussion. Sources are always welcome! --Nuujinn (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean discussions like [1] and [2] (warning, PDFs). I'm sure there are others. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PDFs are fine. 2 is not linked. 1 is a good source, but not significant coverage, just a passing mention. But please, add any additional references you can: if notability can be established, that's a good thing. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed link 2; I dunno how I mangled it in the first place, so thanks for letting me know. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, but I still must be missing something, there's a footnote to an article with spectral hash in the title, do you consider that significant coverage? I do not think there has been reference to this algorithm put forth here that goes into any depth whatsoever about the algorithm itself that is not the work of the authors of the algorithm, and as such, I cannot regard it as notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed link 2; I dunno how I mangled it in the first place, so thanks for letting me know. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PDFs are fine. 2 is not linked. 1 is a good source, but not significant coverage, just a passing mention. But please, add any additional references you can: if notability can be established, that's a good thing. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean discussions like [1] and [2] (warning, PDFs). I'm sure there are others. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2010 (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.
- 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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1541 Ultimate
- 1541 Ultimate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An article on a Commodore 64 peripheral, sourced to such peerless references as YouTube (your one-stop primary source for WP:OR). Article reads as a personal essay or opinion piece ("The 1541 Ultimate's target group is fairly wide. Convenience is a dominant factor...") I am sure that both current users of the C64 will buy this, but the article as written is not compliant with policies on NPOV, sourcing and so on. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- What is your problem? The Article has undergone a previous deletion review, which means your speedy deletion violated one principal rule of speedy deletion already. First I had to undergo a block removal, because you blocked me as well on claims of sock puppetry totally without any evidence. Then it took me a week to get the article undeleted (with a 5:0 vote for undeleting it i might add) and now you come at me again? What have I done to you? I even removed the whole "public reception" part meanwhile, even though I didn't have to, and now you claim "fairly wide" and "convenience" is a valid reason for deleting the article? Give me a break! Also AFAIK the 1541u has sold over 500 units so far, so please refrain from ad homs like "both current users of the C64"... -- DeeKay64 (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see any reason to mark this article for deletion. If you take issue with one or two sentences, you should point that out instead of marking for deletion (the wikipedia equivalent of trolling). The article uses both primary and secondary sources and is almost entirely fact-based. It seems you focus more on trolling the C=64 community than contributing to article quality. -- Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.86.70 (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— /213.140.86.70 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep - It indeed seems that this deletion proposal is grounded on personal issues rather than rational ones. The nominator appears to have been editing Wikipedia actively since 2006, so I'm sure that he is familiar with the procedures on how to deal with articles that don't demonstrate the notability of their subject matters well enough. Besides, this is a kind of product where the existing Wikipedia notability guidelines can't be directly applied, so some discussion about its inclusion criteria definitely needs to take place before considering deletion. To me, a manufacturing volume of 500 units for a new peripherial of a computer that hasn't been commercially available for over 15 years makes it notable enough. I'm voting for keep. --Viznut (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It would be a great disservice to the Wikipedia community if this article were removed due to the endless gesticulations of one singular intransigent editor. -- 67.34.98.154 (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC) -- 67.34.98.154 (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - but remove sections 'Features', 'Specifications', and the list of changes under '1541 Ultimate II' as WP:NOTCATALOG. Interested users can visit the product site for this sort of detail. --CliffC (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I linked the tech specs now, but I think the features should stay. After all that is what tells the reader what the cartridge is good for on one quick glance without much reading. That's what people expect for this sort of wiki-entry, compare f.ex. other hardware, e.g. the Action Replay utility cartridge, which is quite comparable to the 1541u. I also changed the 1541u II section from bulletpoints into text now, i think a wikipedia article on a piece of hardware should also cover different generations. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I tagged this back in March as reading like an ad, and it hasn't improved much since. Lacks reliable third party indepdendant sources. i.e. Source to the originator of the product, blogs and a forum post all well short of wikipedia's standards --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I seriously don't know what some people expect with a c64 cartridge released in 2008, but there's little chance Tom's Hardware will review a 1541 Ultimate any time soon! ;-) I did link to one independant review on retrohacker and retrozentrale (german), there WAS also a videolink to an independant video-review (deleted by someone). That's about as good as it will ever get, sorry. I removed the "public reception" part completely, added a section on the 1541u II and the opensource FW release and removed the tech specs - "hasn't improved much"? Hello? I'm growing a bit tired of the "reads like an ad" complaints from people that have no connection to the Commodore 64 scene whatsoever - even though nothing about its success is in the article anymore. The cartridge is hugely successful (by c64 standards!), pretty much every active c64 user I know has bought one (some even several!), what should I write? That nobody bought it and nobody cares? Here's a quote from the iPod article: "Since October 2004, the iPod line has dominated digital music player sales in the United States, with over 90% of the market for hard drive-based players and over 70% of the market for all types of players." "Pods have won several awards ranging from engineering excellence, to most innovative audio product, to fourth best computer product of 2006."- Reads like an ad, huh? ;-) Oh, and btw, i mentioned this in my undeletion submit already: I wrote the article on the MMC64, too, a competing cartridge of a different manufacturer. Should show just nicely that I have no connection whatsoever to the guy making the 1541u.. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can help you out on expectation for wikipedia regarding this or indeed anything else regardless of when released and what for. See the general notability guideline in essence to make the test more objective than what you and I find Interesting, Useful or whatever, the test becomes does the world at large considered it important, interesting... enough to write about it, if not then it isn't considered notable. If you are confirming that being a c64 cartridge released in 2008 is unlikely to be of interest to the world at large, then you are pretty much confirming it doesn't meet wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The independant reviews fail as 1 is a forum post which fails the reliable source part of the WP:GNG, and the other is a blog which suffers similar problems. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the lecture, but the fact remains that Wikipedia is full of stuff that is not of interest to the world at large. OTOH, pretty much everbody I told about the 1541u was very interested. Maybe I should actually send one of my units for review to Tom's Hardware... Over 38.000 hits for both "1541 Ultimate" and "1541u" on Google show that it's of interest to more people than you claim. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No lecture - if you don't like the answers that's your problem. See Wikipedia:GOOGLE#Search engine tests and Wikipedia policies and WP:BIGNUMBER number of google hits are irrelevant, again wikipedia has long established the standards for inclusion, ones you say you can't meet. Also regarding other stuff and people being intereted in them see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No Wikipedia rule is set in stone, and you know that very well. F.ex. there's a gazillion articles out there with bulletpoint lists - "Not encyclopedic", so it must all be deleted. I know you're doing your best to do just that, but it's just such an uphill battle, isn't it? I'm kinda tired of all this WP:BIKESHED... -- DeeKay64 (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is set in stone, the foundation mandates certain things and things like verifiability are beyond removal. " I know you're doing your best to do just that" again trying to attack me rather than address the issue of this article relative to wikipedia policy. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No Wikipedia rule is set in stone, and you know that very well. F.ex. there's a gazillion articles out there with bulletpoint lists - "Not encyclopedic", so it must all be deleted. I know you're doing your best to do just that, but it's just such an uphill battle, isn't it? I'm kinda tired of all this WP:BIKESHED... -- DeeKay64 (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No lecture - if you don't like the answers that's your problem. See Wikipedia:GOOGLE#Search engine tests and Wikipedia policies and WP:BIGNUMBER number of google hits are irrelevant, again wikipedia has long established the standards for inclusion, ones you say you can't meet. Also regarding other stuff and people being intereted in them see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the lecture, but the fact remains that Wikipedia is full of stuff that is not of interest to the world at large. OTOH, pretty much everbody I told about the 1541u was very interested. Maybe I should actually send one of my units for review to Tom's Hardware... Over 38.000 hits for both "1541 Ultimate" and "1541u" on Google show that it's of interest to more people than you claim. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All that stuff about every active c64 user I know etc. is original research it's your impression/opinion which is leading to a conclusion now being presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Your iPod quote will be verifiable in reliable sources, not just something a wikipedia editor plucked out of the air. I'm glad you believe you personally know everyone involved in the c64 scene to the level or recognising their IP addresses. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed one important part: The section where this would matter has been deleted already. Tough luck... And yes, i know the majority of active c64 sceners, whether you believe it or not. But why am I even arguing with someone lecturing me on Wikipedia guidelines that does not even have an own account? -- DeeKay64 (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Touch luck" - See WP:BATTLE. Quality of argument relative to wikipedia policies is the important factor. If the best argument you have is "look they edits as an IP" then I guess you're right the discussion isn't worth having. You might also like to see m:Foundation Issues point 2. If Wikipedia wanted to stop IP editing they of course could - they don't. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:BITEME and WP:DONTCARE. It's not the IP editing that's the problem, it's you lecturing me on Wikipedia guidelines while you do not even bother to register you own account, preferring to shoot anonymously from the dark. There's a reason that stuff from IPs is largely ignored - fortunately... Since when are IPs allowed to have a say in an AfD anyway? Editing is one thing, but participating in a discussion where every separate opinion counts is another. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep that's a strong line of argument indeed. I'm not lecturing you, you stated you didn't know what people expected, I answered. How is not registering for an account at odds with understanding wikipedia policy? There isn't a wikpedia policy saying you must have an account. I have used this IP for well over a year so hardly being anonymous if I called my self "XYZ1234" I'd be every bit as anonymous. Regarding if my comments are ignored or not, again this is a strength of argument issue, arguments grounded in wikipedia policy, guidelines etc. which represent a more general community consensus hold more weight than "I know it's really important and you are a nobody" type arguments. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:BITEME and WP:DONTCARE. It's not the IP editing that's the problem, it's you lecturing me on Wikipedia guidelines while you do not even bother to register you own account, preferring to shoot anonymously from the dark. There's a reason that stuff from IPs is largely ignored - fortunately... Since when are IPs allowed to have a say in an AfD anyway? Editing is one thing, but participating in a discussion where every separate opinion counts is another. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Touch luck" - See WP:BATTLE. Quality of argument relative to wikipedia policies is the important factor. If the best argument you have is "look they edits as an IP" then I guess you're right the discussion isn't worth having. You might also like to see m:Foundation Issues point 2. If Wikipedia wanted to stop IP editing they of course could - they don't. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed one important part: The section where this would matter has been deleted already. Tough luck... And yes, i know the majority of active c64 sceners, whether you believe it or not. But why am I even arguing with someone lecturing me on Wikipedia guidelines that does not even have an own account? -- DeeKay64 (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can help you out on expectation for wikipedia regarding this or indeed anything else regardless of when released and what for. See the general notability guideline in essence to make the test more objective than what you and I find Interesting, Useful or whatever, the test becomes does the world at large considered it important, interesting... enough to write about it, if not then it isn't considered notable. If you are confirming that being a c64 cartridge released in 2008 is unlikely to be of interest to the world at large, then you are pretty much confirming it doesn't meet wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The independant reviews fail as 1 is a forum post which fails the reliable source part of the WP:GNG, and the other is a blog which suffers similar problems. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- very weak keep Sources are very (very) weak but IAR I think we should have articles on stuff like this, it's an area WP:N falls down. Ideally this would be merged somewhere, but I've no real idea on a targetHobit (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete yet again. Still unsourced and unsourceable, just like the last time it was deleted at AFD, and not one of the votes above (which is what they are) addresses this. Article creator has recreated this article close to a dozen times at various titles, edit warred to keep the unencyclopedic features list in the article, and lied through his teeth here and at DRV by claiming that the article had survived a previous deletion debate. (I'm frankly appalled that nobody at DRV checked.) —Korath (Talk) 00:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Lied through his teeth"? I beg your pardon, the issues were obviously resolved when i re-added the article 2 months later with more sources, so this time there was no deletion and the article remained online for 2 years. Need I remind you that during the last AfD, it already was a borderline case? And back then there were no sources like the youtube videos of the 1541u being made or the retrozentrale review. Before release, there were *only* forum sources, so you could not even prove that the 1541u actually existed. Seriously: What more sources do you need? Or let's even go back a bit: What in the article is of such a nature that it actually would *require* sources? Are there any claims being made that need to be substantiated? It's just a simple small article on what the cartridge is and what it does, homepage is linked, as are tech specs and a review of it (and a video of its production, unfortunately no more) - what more do you need in a simple article like this? This is not an article on Scientology, abortion or anything controversial that would require sources galore!
- Regarding your other unsubstantiated attacks: I have recreated the article exactly once, what are you talking about "close to a dozen times"? The redirects from 1541u and 1541Ultimate? You're not seriously summing that up into one big sounding number, are you? I did not "edit war" either, i rephrased and moved stuff around, it's not just simple reverts. Also, the feature list was put back in twice, and last I looked the definition of edit warring is three times in 24 hours... -- DeeKay64 (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I get to have one vote, too, so let me use it to sum up why i think this should be on Wikipedia: It is a piece of hardware that is both interesting for the Retrogaming and the active Commodore 64 scene, plus it has obscurity value for technically interested folks (think: slashdot crowd). It has sold over 500 units from what I know, which is more than many other items that have their own wikipedia entry (e.g. Bugatti Veyron). The passages that could be interpreted as advertising were removed, making it now a very simple, informative, straightforward article on what it is and what it is good for. There are no unverifiable claims in the article that need to be substantiated by independant sources, so the lack of "official" sources for such a semi-hobbyist project should not be an issue. Rephrasing debatable sentences in the article should not be a reason for deleting it, so feel free to edit. ;-) I'd just like to mention that the MMC64 article is the exact same thing as this article, and that has been online for four years without a single debate now, so why the issue with this article now? Also, I'd like to point out that the nomination for AfD was not based on reason, but personal revenge. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Insufficient coverage available to demonstrate notability and verifiability. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to all: Significant restructuring and rewriting, please re-check! Also added another competing product to counter claims of advertising! ;-) -- DeeKay64 (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly lacks the required significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. ukexpat (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to all: Added a lot more sources; Independant Review of the 1541u II, Several video reviews and CHIP magazine Poland on the 1541 Ultimate. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These are blog posts without apparent editorial oversight. —Korath (Talk) 19:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, all the things you know. You have the 6/2010 issue of CHIP at hand? Cause I do. Says here: "Redaktor naczelny: Michal Adamczyk" You might wanna ask him.. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can find no significant coverage. I am struggling to understand the comments above but also struggling to understand the article itself it needs a substantial rewrite to be accessible to non enthusiasts. TeapotgeorgeTalk 00:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per Teapotgeorge
- Delete - sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (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.