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

Revision as of 02:55, 18 July 2011

Revision as of 05:33, 18 July 2011

Line 44:

Well, i have yet to understand your discrimation against forums as a notable reference?? I also do not understand how a forum posting is "self published". I did not publish these references, other people and experts did that, I don't even know them. Please clarify, I read the wiki defnition and still don't see how the references are "self published". 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 responding 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)