Jump to content

Talk:RoboGEO

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is there a reason this article is harmful to the encyclopedia? Iwanttocreateanarticle 13:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The reason I flagged the article for deletion is that it makes no assertion as to why it is notable. Also, none of the information in the article is verified by reliable sources. This actually is a pretty major problem-readers must have a way to check if what they're reading is actually true, and to see that information from a neutral, independent source. Seraphimblade 13:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this. It is notable because people might want to use it to tag their images. As for verifiability, you can go to the website http://robogeo.com/ and it is mentioned in the book "Mapping Hacks: tips & tools for electronic cartography", ISBN 978-0596007034. I will add these to the article if you hold your horses for a minute. Iwanttocreateanarticle 13:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To add to previous-you may want to have a look at the software notability guidelines for what makes a piece of software suitable for an article. Seraphimblade 13:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be a proposed guideline. Should we be following proposed guidelines, or only actual accepted ones? Iwanttocreateanarticle 13:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you would prefer a widely accepted one, the main notability guideline is really what we work from-the subject must have been covered by multiple non-trivial reliable sources. All that the other notability guidelines do is state what types of things are likely to have that type of coverage. Seraphimblade 13:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying it is a criterion for speedy deletion for an article not to cite multiple non-trivial reliable sources? If this is so, aren't nearly half of the articles in Wikipedia subject to speedy deletion? Iwanttocreateanarticle 14:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for speedy deletion is that the subject doesn't even assert why it might be notable. If, for example, the article claimed that the software had been covered by PCWorld or recommended by Microsoft, it would not be subject to speedy deletion (though if these claims could not be substantiated, it would still be likely to be deleted through the standard deletion process). WP:CSD has more specific information on the speedy deletion criteria. Is there any coverage of this software? If you can point me that direction, I can certainly help you to cite it. Seraphimblade 14:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! See you've done so, I've withdrawn the speedy request accordingly. Seraphimblade 14:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also

[edit]

Another point is that you said people might want to use it to tag their images. That's a predictive statement: the difference between "is famous" and "surely could become famous at some point, I just know it", you see? We don't do those. DS 15:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does a program have to be famous to have an article about it? Iwanttocreateanarticle 15:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily famous-it just has to have enough source material about it to write an article from. A good test I've found to determine if a subject is notable (and this applies to everything, not just software) is "Could someone who knows absolutely nothing about this subject going in write a decent article about this subject, just by looking it up in reference material?" If the answer to that is yes, you've got a notable subject-if the answer is "No, you'd really have to have personal knowledge", you're treading into original research. Many programs which are not famous are nonetheless well-covered in reliable sources. With this one, the article you cited provides a good amount of coverage, so I'd say it tends toward being notable. Seraphimblade 15:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on RoboGEO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RoboGEO&oldid=1204318434"