Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart File System: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:16, 12 October 2015

Revision as of 20:25, 12 October 2015

Line 43:

:** Uhm, because it's a computer file system, making it not exactly everyone's favorite conversation topic, but if this intrinsic paucity of secondary sources is not accounted for, then many legitimate technical topics will never have the amount of coverage some editors want for everything. I must also mention I find it a slight symptom of bias when I comment about adding sources and people consistently counter-comment "but it's still not enough". [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 15:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

:***Why should software be the exception to GNG? Note that I'm not somehow opposed to software; I'm very interested in it and in fact know some coding myself. But if a certain piece of software is actually notable and deserves coverage in Wikipedia, it shouldn't be especially difficult to find somewhat in-depth coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. It should meet this criteria if it is actually "legitimate"; in fact, the standard of "legitimate" on Wikipedia is defined by the policy. There is always [[WP:IAR]], but invoking it for only one file system would set a bad precedent. ("Upset that your article doesn't meet the notability guidelines? No problem! Just cite [[WP:IAR]]!") --[[User:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37;">'''''Biblio'''''</span>]][[User_talk:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37">'''''worm'''''</span>]] 20:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

:****I don't invoke [[WP:IAR]], if anything I just invoke [[WP:COMMON|common sense]] in applying [[WP:Notability]] (which, as a guideline and not a policy, "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense"), and in particular I ask that the requirements of notability "proof" are weighed against the conceivably possible "proof" that you could obtain for this ''sort'' of topic. If you, for example, set the bar as high as the amount of references you can find to establish notability for the [[Physics]] article, then you would exclude pretty much everything else. Instead, I think notability requirement should be toned down common-sensically (not waived) for topics that are quite technical and narrow, and as such, while still useful information to have, may not be on every book and magazine on Earth. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 20:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)