Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeerXML

BeerXML

BeerXML (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unsourced, unref'd, fails to meet any known notability criteria _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the third attempt in 30 minutes to delete this page, and I have spent more time staving off attempts to delete it than actually writing it. I might be able to actually reference the article if I were allowed to work on it.

This behaviour is getting out of control and is highly detrimental to the encouragement of contributions. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I can't see any evidence that this is notable from googling (and reading the article). But since there may be coverage in specialist publications, I suggest we give PrivateWiddle a few days to try to prove notability. It's evidently not a get-rich-quick scheme, and there could be more communication and understanding on all sides. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Userfy - Articles that aren't ready to be articles can be built in user space without constant fear of deletion. Once they are ready, then they can be moved to article space. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Userfy or move into Draft space. The PROD and AfD nominations came 18 and 32 minutes after article creation, which is a bit fast; better could have been to first tag the article for notability, or better yet, contact the creator with noted concerns. BeerXML is a real thing [1] and is in use by organizations like BeerSmith. I don't know if it is notable, but the creator should be allowed time to develop the article and make their case for notability. This would be best done by either moving the article to PrivateWiddle's user space (userfy) or to move the article to Draft space. --Mark viking (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Response

I am grateful that time has been given. The first two delete markers were put up by people who claimed it was 'obvious' that the article exists to promote a commercial product. The first line the article says "BeerXML is a free, fully defined XML data description standard..." So its obvious that the first two attempts at speedy deletion were utterly wrong. Who are these people? The third delete marker appeared before I had finished dealing with the first two. Notability is in the eye of the beholder in this case. However BeerXML is used by several web sites, several software packages (commercial and open source) and an increasing series of apps. Between them these sites and applications have 6 figures of users. I don't know if that helps.

I think I will probably refrain from starting new pages in future as there seem to be a small army of people who revel in deleting the efforts of others. Having looked at the user page for one individual today I was shocked at the nastiness and abusiveness they displayed towards those who enquired about their actions. Frankly, they seem unhinged. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. This user's offensive comments suggest that he has little understanding of wikipedia guidelines (despite the length of time he's been here), no idea of what "promotional" means, and no intention of bringing the article up to standard - not that it is possible to make something notable when it's not. Deb (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The user's 'offensiveness' is irrelevant to the question and your mention of it suggests that you may be having trouble being objective in this discussion Ucanlookitup (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Incorrect

By 'offensive' what you mean is that you don't like being called out when you are acting incorrectly. I understand perfectly well what 'promotional' means. Explain exactly what or who is being promoted here? As for notability, that is a matter for consensus, not for you to simply go round putting speedy delete markers on articles you are not interested in, even when you patently don't have the first idea what the article is about and before the article is even half an hour old. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• G11

After reading G11 again (copied below) its clear that its use to justify deletion is wrong on at least two counts.

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion

Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion.

Therefore even if BeerXML were a company or a product (as was incorrectly asserted by the deleters) it would still have been wrong to apply a speedy delete marker. Even if it were 'exclusively promotional' (and it isn't remotely promotional but heavily descriptive) it 'does not qualify for this criterion'. If one is to set oneself up as the arbiter of what should or should not be deleted, then a scrupulous attention to the criteria should be adhered to.

You can't make assertions that an open data format is a product and then expect to have the power to delete articles on that subject because you are simply factually wrong. On that basis the articles on XML and HTML would have to be deleted, but I doubt you would try to get away with that.

The question here is notability. The first two attempts to delete the article did not cite notability, so falling back on it now would seem to suggest that those two people just really want the article deleted.

Notability is accepted or rejected by consensus and is a matter of opinion. Judging whether BeerXML is notable or not, according to the criteria set by Wikipedia, depends on a basic understanding of what it is. If sheer number of users was the sole criteria then it would pass. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, sheer number of users is not a criterion, as I'm sure you are aware. When I speedy deleted the original version of the article, some days ago, I explained on your talk page what it was that made the article promotional. Although you have since produced an improved version, you are a long way off demonstrating notability - hence the current nomination. An open data format is, of course, a product, as is anything else that is produced by a person or persons. No one ever used the word "commercial" to you, as you claim in your long and muddled tirade about how hard done by you are. You now have three options:

1. Go and look for acceptable independent references that demonstrate the supposed notability of this particular format/product;
2. Have the page moved to your user space so you can play with it in the hope that, in time, it will be possible to bring it up to standard;
3. Sit around here insulting everyone who disagrees with you until such time as consensus decides what to do with your article. :It's up to you. Deb (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say numbers of users was the critrion or even a criterion, is said 'if' so please stop twisting my words. The guidance is quite clear that numbers of users is not sufficient in itself, but may be persuasive. You cannot be allowed to get away with your 'product' sleight of hand. The text clearly says 'a company or a product' not 'product in the loose sense of work.

I can see you won't be happy until the article is deleted so I suggest you just go ahead and do it as you have been on a mission to do so since 5 minutes after I started it. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I am the lead developer of FOSS software Brewtarget. BeerXML is a standard among many different and competing beer softwares. This article is in no way promotional or beneficial to any of them in particular. This is a very good attempt to make an unbiased description of the standard, and is worthy of being a Wikipedia article. Please let the development of this article continue. Rocketman768 (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

cool talkpage _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution, Rocketman768, but the article has been nominated for deletion on the grounds of failure to demonstrate notability, not for being promotional. It was previously speedy deleted as promotional, but the creator recreated the article after that, with different wording. If you could focus on the notability issue, that would be helpful. Deb (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually I recreated the article with almost identical wording. What changed wasn't my wording but your given reason for wanting to delete the article. I understand that having other users (particularly ones who are well informed on the topic) making contributions that support the retention of the article is unsettling for you. However Rocketman768 is entitled to ask for the article to be given space to develop. He has confirmed that BeerXML is an accepted standard and is professionally competent to make that assertion. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

For pity's sake. You did not recreate the article with identical wording. I did not nominate the article for deletion; furthermore, the contributor who tagged it for being promotional and the one who has nominated it for non-notability are two distinct individuals. Even more irritating than your determination to misrepresent facts is your arrogance in believing you are the only person in the world who "understands" the topic. I doubt that there is anyone so far involved in this debate who doesn't know what an XML standard is and isn't competent to make the call on notability, using the criteria set down by this project rather than the subjective ones you would prefer. Deb (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• keep although major pruning is needed. This an unclear article on a badly-written standard. The boundaries of both need to be tidied up. If this is an XML schema (this isn't quite clear, see talk:), then the redefinition of XML itself should be removed (from both, although we don't control the BeerXMl standard).

Can a schema be WP:Notable? Of course it can! Does it meet GNG? Haven't looked in detail yet - but the interest in small-scale robot brewing over the last couple of years depends on BeerXML and that alone has had an adequate level of coverage in the geek press. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the keep. I'd be very happy if others were able to improve the article and any defincies in its content are down to me. Of course any deficiencies in the standard are a different matter. I note from the development forum that a major revision has been proposed and is under discussion. Those advocating a fundamental rewrite are prepared to sacrifice backwards compatibility to achieve it so it seems you are not alone in your reservations. *Devils In Skirts! (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - has clear third-party verifiability - David Gerard (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - there's plenty of links to multiple sites including CNN and Ars Technica. I know personally of multiple applications that use the standard (Brewtoad, Beersmith, etc) and I find the arguments in favour of deletion to be severely lacking. StuartCarter (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - Notability seems to be the only valid question here. A simple Google search seems to suggest that it's notable enough for a technology related article. I'm not sure why there is such a rush to delete here. Three attempts? Really? Ucanlookitup (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - As is clearly indicated via the cited sources and a simple Google search, this is a widely-used standard within brewing and homebrewing software. The number of quality cites is certainly more than enough to demonstrate notability. ErockRPh 13:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - It appears that an earlier version of the article did not establish notability. This version does, and should be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - Nicely referenced. Hugh (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - as per Erockrph. Deb appears to have improperly attempted to get rid of this article, why?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Mainly per Andy Dingley. Solomon7968 09:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Notes on Notability

Its worth remembering that, per Wikipedia:GNG#Article_content_does_not_determine_notability, Article content does not determine notabilty. As it says:

Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.

So we can now end the stream of requests to dot the article with cites which are then dismissed as not being enough. The only place left now for those who advocate deletion is the notability of the subject itself. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Still struggling to see any references from reliable sources. Most of your citations seem to be either from websites run by individuals or completely lacking in context. Deb (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It would help you with your struggle if you read: Wikipedia:GNG#Article_content_does_not_determine_notability. To quote it verbatim:

If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.''

You are of course welcome to find better references on notability than CNN, Ars Technica, Hexus, Medium.com and Linux.com. The other references in the article are to back up individual statements in the article and do not and were not intended to have any bearing on notability in either direction (as per the above), as I suspect you know.

I see that you have put a tag for 'Attention By Experts On The Subject' To quote the tag itself Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. I note that you added that tag without recourse to the talk page and without giving reasons. I also note that you now hold the position that the article should be deleted for lack of notability while holding the opposing position that more experts on the subject would help improve the article. I also note that you are tagging the article unilateraly but not making any contributions to it. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Userfy Sjeesj, can nobody here give their arguments succinctly instead of clogging up this debate with walls of text, headings, bold yelling, and whatnot? The same goes for the article, which is not WP:MOS compliant nor particularly encyclopedic. All the references to sources that obviously are not WP:RS also make it difficult to see if there is any serious coverage of this topic. I think that an encyclopedic article may somewhere be lurking in this mess, but the current article is unencyclopedic and fails to establish notability per WP:GNG. As a general remark, if you want to avoid people tagging your new articles for notability/deletion/whatnot, then you should either make sure that already your first version establishes notability very clearly or (more relaxed) first work on it in your sandbox and only move it into main space when it is ready for prime time. Finally, everybody here should be reminded of WP:AGF. And perhaps we should also have something like WP:ADULT or WP:MATURE... --Randykitty (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

What happened to WP:IMPERFECT? Article improvement on en:WP has ground to an absolute halt compared to a few years ago because the culture has become so hostile and dogmatically opposed to anything that isn't instantly perfect.

We are supposed to work by small incremental improvements, shared between collaborating editors. If something is less than perfect, whoever is best placed to fix it, or who is most annoyed by it, should pick up the ball. Instead we now have confrontational stalemate where far too many "editors" operate on the basis of finding some exciting meta-admin task to put into action, best of all removing a whole article. Forward development is stifled by this. Why should an editor have to "only move it into main space when it is ready for prime time"? We're supposed to be able to make new articles available for collaborative editing as soon as they can clear CSD for notability, not have to wait until they are polished off-line and delivered whole, already at GA status. The bulk of current WP content was not built in that way and introducing it as a new requirement today is sympomatic of why WP has become paralysed for moving forwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty Its nice to have someone on here with a potentially more misunderstandable username than mine. The raggedness of the structure of the article and the sprawl of this discussion are due to a)probably me not writing well but mostly b) never having the time because of a blizzard of userpage tags, rfcs and demands for ever more sources from the two users who started this AfD in the first place.

I'd like to suggest that a move to userspace would deny the other people working on the article their space to do so and also the opportunity for new contributions.

The situation with perhaps too many references is really a tidyup issue and AFD is not tidyup. It came about because I was trying to satisfy the movers of the AFD that the subject is notable. The use of bold by me was a mistake made in frustration that our two friends (one of whom is an admin) refuse to concede or even discuss the factual point that Wikipedia:GNG#Article_content_does_not_determine_notability.

The article is disjointed, the latter part reads too much like a manual and doubtless many other things can be changed. First we must get this AFD out of the way, which is holding back further contributions. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Moving the article to user space in no way restricts the ability of any editor to make improvements to the article. What it does do is remove it from the "public eye" so that it can be brought up to Wikipedia standards of style, much in the same way that a work of art may be covered during restoration. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 10:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a collaborative project. Keeping articles in individual userspace is a strong disincentive to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Opinions on whether this issue is settled?

Firstly I'd like to thank Rocketman768, Andy Dingley, David Gerard, StuartCarter, Ucanlookitup, Erock, Robert McClenon, Hugh, Sturmvogel 66 and United States Man who along with me believe that the article should be retained. Its true that the article needs more clarity, some reformatting and some pruning.

However the issue here is deletion on the grounds of lack of notability. I believe that is now comprehensively settled.

I'm going to hazard a guess that Deb and _Fortuna still want the article deleted as they have done since the first day it went up. As they have failed to convince anyone else of the merit of removing the article from Wikipedia, I think that its now time the marker was removed and those who are interested in building the article can get on with that job.

As an aside it is regrettable that this dispute has led to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/PrivateWiddle against me personally and an attempt to delete Broadcast Markup Language. I'm very sorry that the contributors to that page found their contributions under threat as part of this dispute. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability. I've yet to see a clear statement of which sources in the article constitute 'significant coverage in reliable sources', the core of notability requirements. I see a lot of incidental mentions, including the arstechnica and cnn articles, which focus on the PicoBrew machine and only mention beerXML in a sentence or two. A number of the sources are user editable/blogs/not RS, and do not contribute to notability. A search turned up forum posts and more incidental mentions, but no significant RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Will this paragraph from the Hexus article by Nathan Ingraham help? Under the heading:

Connected to the internet brewing community

Internet connected software is important to the PicoBrew Zymatic functionality. “PicoBrew Recipe Crafter is web-side software we've created that allows you to easily craft recipes that turn out precisely on spec., both for you and for any other PicoBrewer,” says the PicoBrew team. Furthermore “You can also import existing BeerXML-formatting recipes, and Recipe Crafter will scale them to the PicoBrew system for you. At last, great beer recipes can be brewed reliably and repeatably!” (Even though I am very interested in both tech and beer I admit BeerXML is new to me.)

There we have the developers of the kit talking about their integration of the standard into that kit for the purposes they themselves describe. Is that enough? Devils In Skirts! (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)