Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backup Multithreading: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:13, 18 July 2011

Latest revision as of 04:50, 8 February 2022

(7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)

Line 1:

<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''

<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''delete'''. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] ^{''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''} 06:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

===[[Backup Multithreading]]===

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|T}}

:{{la|Backup Multithreading}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backup Multithreading|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 15#{{anchorencode:Backup Multithreading}}|View log]]</noinclude>)

Line 42 ⟶ 48:

Oy Vey, since when did "conflict of interest" as a term become wikipedia specific?? And where is the notability of this new wikipedia specific term called "conflict of interest"? I am sure wikipedia is full of terms and definitions ("conflict of interest" being a perfect example of wikipedia itself inventing terms without notability. The article now meets wiki requirements better than many existing terms in wiki I am sure...I suspect you are being [[hypocritical]]. --[[User:Howartthou|Howartthou]] ([[User talk:Howartthou|talk]]) 22:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

:If there are other articles which you feel may be in violation of policies and guidelines, I recommend that you raise those issues on the talk pages of those articles. If you wish to make vague accusations against me, I suggest that you use my talk page; you will find a link to it at the end of this message. --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 22:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, i have yet to understand your discrimation against forums as a notable reference?? ComeI on,also forumsdo arenot whereunderstand it'show ata inforum theposting modernis world."self They belong to scientific and engineering communuties in all sorts of areas as well as many other diciplinespublished". AI forumdid isnot anpublish educationthese toolreferences, aother validpeople literaryand reference,experts adid library of worksthat, probablyI more relevant than any paper publication because itdon'st oneven the globalknow villagethem. ThesePlease forumsclarify, areI educational and referenceread the article,wiki thatsdefnition notability.and Therestill aredon't manysee other references tohow the article within the code project I have not listed. An internet medium as just another form of media, as so tooreferences are forums"self as part of thatpublished". So now as you imply, the references don't have enough prestiege?? By the way, I did not intend to make accusations against you, and if I did it is by want of a better choice of words. Everything I have said here I believe relevant to the definition in question. I don't think I need to be redirected to other areas of wiki. I am resondingresponding here to this article, as per its purpose., I remain unconvinced regarding your notability point and do not wish to digress from the purpose of this "right of reply" to your proposal to delete his entry. I believe I have revised the article in accordance with your concerns and wiki requirements. --[[User:Howartthou|Howartthou]] ([[User talk:Howartthou|talk]]) 02:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

:The discrimination against forums as a source of reference is not mine; it is listed specifically in [[WP:SPS]]: "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, ''Internet forum postings'', and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources" (emphasis added). Basically, anyone can post any fool thing on a forum; with little or no gatekeeping going on, it doesn't suggest that what is said is either accurate or of import. To use one example, one of the links you added was to [http://deepdictionary.com/webmaster-other-topics/782366-multithreading-backup-utility.html this entry] on a Deep Dictionary forum, where a junior member named "eneas" pasted a copy of the article, and it received no responses. Is "eneas" some expert? Some bot? You? Add in the facts that no claim is made there about the article - its usefulness, its importance, or anything but its source - and that the forum entry has gotten zero responses, and that it's on a site where no one has posted anything in the past eight months, and where the purposes of the forum is obscured (they tell you to read the FAQ, and the FAQ is blank) and I'm at a loss to see how that could be by any definition indicate notability. -[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 02:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay Nat, that (Deep Dictionary) wasn't the best reference I agree, in fact it is probably the worst, but it does not mean it has not been viewed numerous times, nor does it mean that it wasn't used to find the original article. I agree that particlar reference is quite weak on appearances. But definately not "self published", and certainly nothing to do with me. Regardless, I have done all I can to respond to your concerns, I don't think there is much more I can do, and not much more I can add to what I have already said. --[[User:Howartthou|Howartthou]] ([[User talk:Howartthou|talk]]) 05:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' - I can't find any sources to establish notability and what is present in the article fails to meet what would be considered [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. -- [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] ([[User talk:Whpq|talk]]) 15:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' fails [[WP:GNG]] / [[WP:RS]]. [[User:Stuartyeates|Stuartyeates]] ([[User talk:Stuartyeates|talk]]) 23:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>