Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reason - C++ Library
- Reason - C++ Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Put simply, the problems with this article are too numerous to just tag it for cleanup and leave it. Principally, it has WP:ADVERT and WP:COI issues. In addition, WP:NOT a repository for product documentation. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I noted on the talk page that the entire article was copied from the project's homepage. Dandaman32 (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete When I investigated the first appearance of this article, eventually tagging it for copyright issues, I was struck by the apparent lack of much independent coverage out there, which suggests it's very premature to say this topic has established notability. And it really does read like promotional material. --Sturm 01:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The entire text is copied becuase i wrote it. Is there a problem with this ?
I had no idea Wikipedia was so full of zealots. Seriously, how is the article ive just written any different to any of the other articles about Application framework's. Have you actually tried to verify the source ? Take a look at my email user name and email addres, and then have a look at [1] and compare them.
Try sending me an email ?
It would reallly assist me in improving the quality if you actually listed all of the problems which are "too numerous" so that i could actually fix it. Surely you should be encouraging contribution not squashing it in a rage of furious keystrokes.
I doubt wikipedia's reputation would be seriously harmed if you actually let the dust settle on a new article, for say more than 60 seconds before you flag it for deletion !
Gees, you guys are so nuts about this i cant even paste a comment here. Its taken me three tries just to get a word in. Take a chill pill... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerson clarke (talk • contribs) 01:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - lack of reliable sources, no indication of notability. Even if the subject is notable, the article would have to be completely rewritten to be suitable for Wikipedia. --Snigbrook (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_library for an example of the same kind of content. If the article needs to be re-written then so be it, but thats no means for deletion. The whole point of wikipedia is to edit things is it not, you just have to give it a chance first though... im really not impressed with the attitudes being demonstrated here. --Emerson clarke (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. It's written like one. Also Its a WP:COPYVIO Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 02:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I am going to address each of the above points in turn, and then remove the deletion notice on the article since i think that most of whats been mentioned here is either not relevant or out of date.
KurtRaschke I have removed all references to licensing other than the statements that it is an open source framework. So if you still feel there are WP:ADVERT issues then i would appreciate an explanation.
As for the WP:COI issue, i dont understand this. I happen to be the author of the framework, but that doesnt automatically mean there is a conflict of interest. I also happen to be the only person who knows enough about the philosophy and design behind it to reliably author a wikipidia article about it.
The article is most definately not WP:NOT product documentation. There are a few examples, as have been provided in similar articles about other frameworks like [Boost library]. The library is some 250,000 lines of code - there is simply no way you can argue that what ive written consitiutes documentation. Its a few quick examples demonstrating common programming problems and solutions, as is required to explain what Reason - C++ Library is about.
Copying the article from the homepage does not represent a problem per say. The copyright issues have been explained and dealt with. The content is only a starting point for editing anyway, and that in itself is no cause for deletion.
I really would appreciate more constructive examples of why you feel its not suitable if indeed you do.
What exactly consitutes independent coverage. I would suggest that you are simply not very familiary with the subject matter in question. C++ as a language has been around for 30 years or more, and in that time very few useful, simple, or well designed Application framework's have ever been written for it.
Reason is only a year old, yet it is still one of only two or three C++ libraries in existance. The others being Boost and QT. But Boost isnt really an application framework, its a template framework.
Reason appears prominantly on Google if you search for C++ frameworks. This serves to demonstrate that the ___domain is very poorly populated, and that should also be enough to establish notability. It represents a significant body of work and a significant achievement.
If you really think it sounds promotional, and more so than other articles about software libraries, frameworks, and platforms then please give me some examples to back up your opinion.
What more reliable source do you want other than the author of the work. Please explain what criteria you expect this to be judged if your going to make such statements.
I dispute your ability or credibility to establish notability. Reason is extremely notable, if only for the fact that it exists and that it is one of very few examples of work in that space. I wonder under what rational you think that its not notable, or if you even bothered to look at the subject matter in the 120 seconds before you voted for deletion.
Again, i have no problem with re-writing the article. Thats part of the reason wikipedia is a wiki. But you have to leave it up there for a while to allow that to happen.
You may percieve the article to be written like a WP:NOT#GUIDE but it certainly isnt one. No more or less than the many hundreds of other technical articles on wikipedia detailings algorithms and software development techniques. As stated above, the article is far from a manual or a source of documentation. There are a few sparse examples, thats it.
There are absolutely ZERO WP:COPYVIO copyright violations on that page. I am the author, as stated here and in the talk page many times and i have already sent the necessary permissions to wikipedia.
Please can you people stop going off half cocked before youve actually read/researched the material and subject space.
Anyway... im going to remove the deletion notice from the page now. Feel free to respond to my comments, and please be considerate in giving examples and explaining your thoughts constructively so that i actually have a chance to make changes.
As editors i think you all probably need to evaluate wether you are working for or against the process, i really am shocked at how quickly and savagly you all jumped on this within minutes of its creation.
The article most definately has a right to be here, given the well established prior art of similar articles about similar subject matter - so if your going to make an argument against Reason - C++ Library it needs to be considdered with this in mind.
Thanks.