Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Bitweaver
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. On numerous occasions, community consensus has shown that the subject is not yet sufficiently notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitweaver/2006-07-12, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitweaver2, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitweaver (3rd nomination), all of which resulted in deletion. This article should not be recreated unless and until it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. Editors are, of course, welcome to nominate for deletion any other article wherein the subject also does not meet this inclusion criteria. — Satori Son 14:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
bitweaver
AfDs for this article:
The given page title was invalid or had an inter-language or inter-wiki prefix.
It may contain one or more characters that cannot be used in titles.
- Template:La – (View log)
Advertising; also note the page was previously deleted for this reason. See archived debate. Also, User:Lsces clearly states the user creating the article is a contributor to the project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamminBen (talk • contribs) 2007-12-13 10:56:38
- Comment Historic material is no longer relevant. bitweaver is no more 'blatant advertising' than any other article connected to List_of_content_management_systems since there is *NO* commercial interest in this open source project, deleting it should also flag TikiWiki - on which the revised article is based so as NOT to fall foul of the content rules - and every other article on the same list page. MORE REALISTICALLY - the REAL commercial advertising should be pulled?
The original article WAS modified and I see more KEEP in this list that delete anyway !!! Lsces (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, promotional, no independent sources. Yes, these rules apply equally to non-commercial projects; sorry you didn't find that out before creating the article. If TikiWiki is just as bad it should be deleted too. --Dhartung | Talk 17:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment ???'no independent sources' - independent links have been included. UNLIKE TikiWiki !!! Lsces (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The deletion review is for people to discuss Bitweaver. For the purpose of the discussion, it doesn't matter whether other articles are in violation of the rules. If you feel that strongly about TikiWiki, you need to raise it as a separate discussion under Articles for Deletion. JamminBen (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Over the last year or so I have been trying to USE wikipedia as the single reference for both historic and current information. This action is being hampered by the LACK of certain key elements when following links. TikiWiki is just one of a dozen links that already EXIST in wikipedia, my user page links to several more, and over the Christmas period I was hoping to spend some time tidying up several articles on my own web sites to ensure that linking is consistent. So are you telling me that for wikipedia to be consistent I should flag EVERY page that provides the same information as this one to be deleted simple so that wikipedia provides a consistent blinkered view of the world? I am having similar problems with PHPEclipse which is an essential part of the development of PHP projects using the Eclipse_(software) and predates the commercially backed PHP_Development_Tools project. SIMPLY killing pages in isolation is the problem here ESPECIALLY when those pages are needed to fill the gaps in the information provided by wikipedia? So rather than trying to HIDE historic material that someone does not like is isn't it more important to provide a complete independent view. If there is something in this article that is not independent PLEASE identify it so that it can be changed, and be consistent in supporting the rapidly changing history of software both commercially and open source. Lsces (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment All I am saying is that this debate is to discuss whether or not the Bitweaver article should be deleted. If you feel that TikiWiki should be deleted it belongs in a separate debate. It is not a question of whether people "like" (or "dislike") certain pages, if notability cannot be ascertained, the article risks being flagged for deletion. Plain and simple. You have stated your position, please let some other people come in and add their views. JamminBen (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have indented all of the comments so this debate is easier to follow. Lsces, you haven't voted yet. If you wish to vote, please state either Keep or Delete with a reason why - see Dhartung's comment above. If you have any further replies that are not a vote, please indent them correctly. Otherwise the debate is very difficult to follow. JamminBen (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I say kill it. Why bother continuing to try to put meaningful information into Wikipedia, when it's policies a) are not evenly applied and b) make no rational sense in the context of its own structure much less the real world. Better to let it go on with gaps and dead ends in information, when google will likely be happy to host the information at their Knol project. Answering a critique of an inconsistently applied policy by suggesting to take up the matter on a case by case basis (that would only result in more irrational deletions) is a pathetic evasive response. In addition, this "independent sources" requirement has no rational basis. Here you are moving to delete documentation of an open source non-commercial project, meanwhile corporations which own any number of media outlets can have any sort of information qualify for publication on wikipedia simply by having that information published in their own subsidiary. Great policy, that really works. Please tell me to take it up with central command at wikipedia. That will really help. Disclosure, I am a bitweaver contributor but putting up this page again was not my idea and i think we're just wasting our time with these people. User:wjames
- Comment Over the last year or so I have been trying to USE wikipedia as the single reference for both historic and current information. This action is being hampered by the LACK of certain key elements when following links. TikiWiki is just one of a dozen links that already EXIST in wikipedia, my user page links to several more, and over the Christmas period I was hoping to spend some time tidying up several articles on my own web sites to ensure that linking is consistent. So are you telling me that for wikipedia to be consistent I should flag EVERY page that provides the same information as this one to be deleted simple so that wikipedia provides a consistent blinkered view of the world? I am having similar problems with PHPEclipse which is an essential part of the development of PHP projects using the Eclipse_(software) and predates the commercially backed PHP_Development_Tools project. SIMPLY killing pages in isolation is the problem here ESPECIALLY when those pages are needed to fill the gaps in the information provided by wikipedia? So rather than trying to HIDE historic material that someone does not like is isn't it more important to provide a complete independent view. If there is something in this article that is not independent PLEASE identify it so that it can be changed, and be consistent in supporting the rapidly changing history of software both commercially and open source. Lsces (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The deletion review is for people to discuss Bitweaver. For the purpose of the discussion, it doesn't matter whether other articles are in violation of the rules. If you feel that strongly about TikiWiki, you need to raise it as a separate discussion under Articles for Deletion. JamminBen (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep For all the reasons stated above including the fact that independent sources HAVE been included in the article - as requested - and additional independent sources have now been added Lsces (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete let wikipedia apply its policies in an inconsistent and irrational way. Let it be a place where only politicians and corporate interests can influence information at will. ps. ban my ip, fighting with you people is pointless. User:wjames
- keep User:ssnnllrr —Preceding comment was added at 02:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC) — ssnnllrr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- 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.