Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of applications developed by David Watanabe

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. - Mailer Diablo 05:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of applications developed by David Watanabe

edit
List of applications developed by David Watanabe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a list of internal links. The article David Watanabe has been deleted; the only reason for this article would be if the article David Watanabe was too large to accommodate this list. See Linking articles. The article was "proded" and contested. Bpringlemeir 14:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the category to Science and Technology. I thought this meant the type of grounds for deletion. I was referencing WP:NOT. Specifically, it states that 'Wikipeadia is not a list of internal links'. Bpringlemeir 18:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. See also the relevant discussion on the article's talk page. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (For reference: I had put a PROD-2 onto the article.) The applications linked in the article may be notable (that's not for discussion here), but the person who created them is not. Hence there's no reason in keeping the list. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Watanabe. --B. Wolterding 17:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Not notable. In my opinion, the person must merit an article for this list to exist, and in that case, the list would properly belong in that article. ✤ JonHarder talk 01:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article provides a central, organized place for putting this list, as a navigational aide to users (previously redundantly scattered in the "See also" sections of the application articles -- see also WP:NOT exceptions to the "collections of internal links" section: "except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists to assist with the organisation of articles."). This is a list of notable applications, and most of the applications listed have their own Wikipedia article. The lack of notability of the author is merely a tangential issue - instead, the notability of the applications themselves makes this article by definition notable, since this article is a list of those applications. While clearly not a bio page, making the bio issue a non-issue, I would also like to point out that on the David Watanabe AFD, there was weak agreement on lack of notability of the author (some hits on Slashdot, for example). Instead, it seems like a stronger reason people wanted the bio article deleted was because people got tired of the perceived ongoing struggle against vandalism and libel which is really a broader Wikipedia issue but I won't go into that. —Tokek 12:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is very strange. I only find these changes in the relevant articles.
* Acquisition diff
* NewsFire diff
* Inquisitor diff
In all cases, they replaced the David Watanabe text to a link pointing to the page in question. Can you point us to the place where the See also section was changed? Bpringlemeir 14:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other argument I made in the talk pages (and others as well) was that there are no other individuals listed in Lists of software. All entries in the list as well as the topic of the list should be notable. Some entries would be fine in a list of Mac Newsreaders, P2P software, etc. The reason for aggregating the entries must also be notable. The real question is do people really care about a list of applications made by David Watanabe? It is sensible that people might wonder what software Donald Knuth has made; In that case, the works are listed on the individuals wiki. The interest in software made by David Watanabe is very narrow and hence the notability of David Watanabe is very relevant to the deletion discussion. Bpringlemeir 14:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of the three edits you link, only the February edit was mine. I was replacing a red link with the best non-red alternative, which is not an unusual practice on Wikipedia (but that doesn't prove that a clearly non-bio article to be a bio article). You've proven that I don't have very accurate memory of small-scale edits made long ago, of which I am guilty of. Analyzing the February versions, two out of the three articles do reference another application by the same author. Inquisitor (software) didn't refer to any other apps by Watanabe but this was taken care of by linking to a bio article while it still existed. My feeling was that it's fairly natural for one to want to know what other applications the same author has made. (Nice touch adding the notability tags to all the app articles, by the way. I noticed what you did there.)
You are comparing apples and oranges with the Knuth example. The false premise argument used in the Knuth and bio-article-too-long arguments makes an assumption that the bio article exists in the first place. It doesn't, so basing an argument on the case that it exists don't apply. Obviously Knuth hasn't been AFD'ed from Wikipedia. Saying that this article should be merged with the bio article if the bio article is not too long - that's comparing apples and oranges. The example that you give is not the "only reason" where a non-merge with a bio article would be acceptable, as I've explained my reasons for a keep vote. —Tokek 16:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please show where in the change history Acquisition, NewsFire, and/or Inquisitor were linking to each other? I am sorry you didn't get my point with the Knuth example. It has nothing to do with him being a person. It has to do with the list subject being notable . For instance, this article was nominated for deletion deleted. The notability of an article is a personal opinion (swayed by references, etc). I guess you feel that David Wantanbe is notable; others do not. That is part of this discussion. The notability of all of the articles listed is also not clearly illustrated in those articles. You are free to improve them (and I certainly encourage you) to show why they are notable, especially using good references. That is a separate issue, not germane to this discussion. I think we should all assume they are notable for now, but we are discussing whether the list subject is relevant. See Listcruft. Bpringlemeir 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find the link for NewsFire. Here is the Acquisition diff, with link to NewsFire. Tokek is correct. That link did exist. Bpringlemeir 17:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the NewsFire diff. Tokek is correct again. Bpringlemeir 17:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is the NewsFire diff that placed the link to Acquisition (software). The summary is "De-linking Watanabe, as he was deleted upon AFD" by User:Tokek, just as the Acquisition diff, with link to NewsFire. The link above was by another anonymous editor with the edit summary "How cares?", removing the link.
Also, perhaps I am too quick to dismiss another point (relayed in the paragraph with Knuth). It is that allowing a list of software by a person sets precedence. This did not exist until this article was created. Previously it appears to be something Wikipedia was not. Ie, WP:NOT. That is not a complete argument, but an ancillary fact that should be considered if someone were neutral given all other reasons. Bpringlemeir 20:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Can you please show where in the change history Acquisition, NewsFire, and/or Inquisitor were linking to each other?" — I think you're being unreasonably and completely unnecessarily being nitpicky here. As I've clearly stated, the February versions were linking to each other and they do. You're completely ignoring a point that I'm making, which is that this article does serve a navigational purpose and is listed as an exception to the collection of lists entry in the WP:NOT.
"Previously it appears to be something Wikipedia was not. Ie, WP:NOT. " — I'm sorry but that's just a play on words and it ignores the fact that this is an extraordinary circumstance, making it rather unique. Play on words is not an entry in WP:NOT, but I see that you're admitting bluff right after that sentence.
I think the main difference in our opinions is what this article is about. Some argue that the notability of the applications should not even be considered despite the fact that this article is about a "List of applications" as mentioned in the article title. This navigational aide article does not try to be a bio article (and I'm honestly not saying this to get around some sort of perceived loophole or workaround, etc.). The difference in the nature of the article seems to indicate that it does not face the same issues that a bio article would encounter. I say that the applications themselves are notable dispite the fact that you are perhaps strategically disagreeing for the sake of this AFD by placing tags to the application articles. Just goes to show that it is near impossible to get 100% agreement on anything on Wikipedia. Even for the Watanabe AFD, the first two votes were "neutral" and "weak delete" based on the notability argument.
The list article inherits some notability from the applications' notabilities. After all, it is not a list of non-notable people, but a list of applications. The list criteria is essentially "works by the same author." Despite your missing-the-point nitpick you had with article histories, "works by the same author" is category that is commonly of interest to users, hence it is a reasonable criteria. The navigational aide list of multiple applications has an article of its own because of the extraordinary circumstance of not having the author article. The subject of the article is not the author, but the applications themselves, while the criteria for the list is "by the same author."
Despite what you may consider about the apps' notabilities, the mere fact that they exist as articles means that this list does serve a role as a navigational aide. "Does this article serve a navigational purpose?" may be a more relevant question rather than "Is this notable?," because as someone has stated, this article is a collection of links. You usually don't get Notability tags added to disambig pages, for example, even if said page might only provide links to only two articles, since the Notability argument would be completely irrelevant in such cases. —Tokek 00:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be flaunting the previous delete by creating a page by a different name to replace it. Bpringlemeir 00:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot disagree more. Both with the fact that you are ignoring or not replying to 99% of the arguments I've made with regard to the topic of this AFD, and with the fact that you are unnecessarily derailing this AFD discussion, intentionally or not, into a personal attack thing with an accusatory tone (although generally weak and unsubstantial ones). I hope you can tell me that I am misunderstanding this situation. Wikipedia is based on trust that Wikipedians won't be rash to come up with cynical and unreasonable conspiracy theories against each other, largely in order to save each other's time. However in the meanwhile, whether it is a complete waste of time or not, here are some general responses.
  1. Yes, I occasionally remove red links if they point to a "bad destination." Especially those that point to deleted articles because such red links could invite people to create articles that have already been deleted. If they do create a new one, their contribution efforts would likely be wasted by a speedy delete (WP:SPEEDY). There's nothing troubling about it.
  2. As I've already stated, the IP address user is not me! The thing about what I said on Wikipedians having reasonable amount of trust in each other..
  3. Yes, I did remove the prod tags. The prod tag that you added links to an explanation about what prod tags are. At the prod tag explanation page, it specifically instructs editors who disagree with the deletion request to remove them. Otherwise a concensus is assumed and the article is deleted. This should not be troubling as it just means that I would have voted for "keep" if the Prod had been an AFD. And now that it's an AFD, I have not surprised anyone I suppose by voting "keep."
  4. Lastly, whether Bpringlemeir realizes it or not, this never-ending nitpick of accusatory history digging is in ways a great waste of effort. It also ignores many of the more on-topic arguments that already respond to what you are repeating and also arguments that are actually about the subject at hand: the article up for deletion. —Tokek 13:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since my comments got long, I will summarise, (hopefully) once and for all, my opinion : WP:NOT lists "collections of internal links" but adds "except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists to assist with the organisation of articles." This article would fall under "lists to assist with the organisation of articles." A category of articles that WP:NOT approves existence of.
While I argue that this article should survives notability as I did above, more significantly I think the notability question should not apply to this article in the first place. The purpose of this article is not to document a subject matter, rather to assist in organisation of other articles.
If the argument is "David Watanabe is not notable, hence articles relating to him are not notable by association," then it would make sense first to put the applications themselves under scrutiny. If decision is made that the applications themselves should not exist, then the list of applications would lack reason to exist after not linking to anything and not serving its organisational purpose anymore. The inverse of that statement could also be said.
On the side, I also argue that the stronger reason why the David Watanabe article was really deleted for was because of vandalism and libel issues rather than a strong consensus on the lack of notability. I would assume being the author of multiple notable applications would give him some notability by association. While this is not my main arguing point, related articles probably do not have the same vandalism / libel issues that the bio had. —Tokek 20:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even lists are immune to the notability guideline. If a consensus has appeared that David Watanaby is a non-notable individual, then so is the concept of "an application developed by David Watanaby." The fact that David Watanaby is non-notable is not a tangential fact related to this list, but rather, the fact that all of these programs had a developer in common is tangential. Someguy1221 23:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Someguy1221. Pavel Vozenilek 03:32, 22 September 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_applications_developed_by_David_Watanabe&oldid=1263967082"