Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backup Multithreading: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
NatGertler (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 10:
:::If you want to save this article, make an actual case to keep it. It is part of "the VB.NET education"? ''Which'' VB.NET education? So far, we have it as a rarely-downloaded piece of software on one website. Do you have some sources conveying notability? You compare it to "Hello world", but for that I can have gnews bring up hundreds of hits for the Hello World program. --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 20:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I find your point about the number of downloads quite irrelavent in that the article is a classic example of multithreading coding in VB.NET using Object Oriented Programming. If your focus is emperical then consider the article has been viewed nearly 81,000 times. It teaches "multithreading" in VB.NET. Just like "hello world" but more advanced teaching on multithreading and VB.NET. The article is the subject, the Backup program is the by-product. And like most good definitions the article and subject teaching separates itself from more classic examples by the fact that it is demonstratable with a useful program called "Backup". This is absolutely essential when defining and teaching a concept like multithreading, OOP and VB.NET. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Howartthou|Howartthou]] ([[User talk:Howartthou|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Howartthou|contribs]]) 22:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:It seems there is a lack of clarity about what the subject of the Wikipedia article is supposed to be.
:*If the subject is '''multithread coding''', then the article both needs to be retitled to reflect that, and much of the content will have to change, although the Code Project article might be used as a reference
:*If the subject is the Code Project article, then the Wikipedia entry should be renamed '''Multithreading Backup Utility''' (the name of the article) and be substantially rewritten (its introduction says its about a piece of software, and it uses an infobox appropriate for a piece of software rather than for a piece of prose. More vitally, we will need to establish its notability by citing significant third-party sources discussing the article, or noting its influence. The mere claim that the article has been read more than 80,000 times is not sufficient; if that's what it took, we'd end up with entries about every article in the New York Times.
:*If the subject is the software itself, then will need to establish its notability by citing significant third-party sources discussing the software.
:I appreciate that you think the Code Project article is good and useful; that does not, however, bring it to the level of notability required of a Wikipedia article. (To quote [[WP:BK]], "Notability" as used herein is not a reflection of a book's ''merit''.)
:--[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 23:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Delete''': No evidence of notability. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] ([[User talk:Carnildo|talk]]) 23:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
| |||