Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desktop Cyber

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker^{talk to me} 16:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop Cyber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Spam for non-notable software which does not meet the general notability guideline and fails WP:PRODUCT. Only the background section, which does not deal with the product itself, is cited. No third-party citations are provided for the product itself. Article appears to have been created by the product developer, as Cdccyber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) signs himself as "Tom" (see this diff). Same editor has been repeatedly inserting links to product Subversion repository despite being warned of the conflict of interest. See also Wikipedia:COIN#Desktop_CYBER. Yworo (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Yworo (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I am unable to find that anything that shows notability. Joe Chill (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - promotional; no actual reliable sources for any supposed notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No notability left after editing by Yworo, Orangemike. The article has been sufficiently crippled that it no longer has any value. The link to the GPL sources of the emulator and the link to the Usenet article announcing the release have been repeatedly removed. This article describes only an emulator of the first supercomputer developed by Seymour Cray. It fails on the following criteria: it provides no significant coverage; is not reliable as the original author has a conflict of interest and is obviously not independent of the subject; the article is self promoting and has no verifiable content. Cdccyber (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your sarcasm is noted, but useless here. Wouldn't that energy have been better put to use developing the article to demonstrate notability, instead of mocking those who pointed out its lack? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Product doesn't seem to have achieved media notability, as I didn't find any good sources on both Yahoo! and Google searches. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Not-Delete. This article is about public ___domain software that serves a public purpose by preserving computer history by making an emulator available for a computer line that was playing a significant role in the area of scientific computing in the 70s to 80s. For details see CDC Cyber. --Philippschaumann (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not addressed the notability issue, which requires reliable sources. Please read our general notability guideline and discuss how the sources satisfy it. For example, reviews in related trade journals? This is not a general discussion of the merit of the subject, but rather a discussion of how it does or does not meet Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. !votes which do not address the issue of the sourcing required to meet our notability standards are generally not considered. See WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSINTERESTING. Also, it's not public ___domain software, it 'licensed under the GPL, which is different, and is also a commercial product that the vendor charges $12,500 for! Yworo (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - None of the references in the article that discuss the subject itself at any length are reliable, they are all self-published sources. That's not even close to establishing notability. -- Atama頭 16:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable and also promotional given the clear conflict of interest. Perhaps a couple of lines could be added to CDC Cyber, but there isn't much worth keeping here. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 17:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Obvious WP:SPAM. No reliable sources provided to establish notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability established with reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No RS, No article - it's that simple. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non notable. COI problems as well. MarnetteD | Talk 18:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for Now or Usefy for development I got 14,000+ hits on Google for DTCyber, it appears that it is likely to have actual notability. The main editor is very innexperienced WP editor (a lifetime 79 edits) and so are probably not any good at establishing wp:notability from rw:notability. So the lack of such here is probably not an indication of potential wp:notability. Plus, for me it always raises concern when another editor is deleting references during the brief AFD commentary period - where's the rush? North8000 (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the first five pages and it's all user generated comment and mailing lists - nothing useful for our purposes. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Keep in mind WP:GHITS. You wouldn't have found any reliable, third-party extensive coverage of the product in any of those 14,000+ hits did you? If so I might be persuaded to change my mind. -- Atama頭 19:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get that deep in. I was just trying to get a quick feel of the likelihood of rw:notability which generally means establish-ability of wp:notability. I'll take a bit more of a look. North8000 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through about 10 pages of google hits on CDCyber and amazon.com. Didn't see any third party books on it. North8000 (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your diligence in checking. I did a similar search and didn't come up with anything, but I've missed things before at AfD discussions (especially for software for some reason) so I'm always happy to see other eyes on it. Thank you. -- Atama頭 20:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails notability. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've written a lot of print articles on IT topics, but cannot find anything that remotely considers this to be notable. Maybe someday, but not now. This is exactly the argument about COI - we *know* that it's important/notable to the product owner, that does not make it notable for an encylopedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.