Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1541 Ultimate


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

1541 Ultimate
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

An article on a Commodore 64 peripheral, sourced to such peerless references as YouTube (your one-stop primary source for WP:OR). Article reads as a personal essay or opinion piece ("The 1541 Ultimate's target group is fairly wide. Convenience is a dominant factor...") I am sure that both current users of the C64 will buy this, but the article as written is not compliant with policies on NPOV, sourcing and so on. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What is your problem? The Article has undergone a previous deletion review, which means your speedy deletion violated one principal rule of speedy deletion already. First I had to undergo a block removal, because you blocked me as well on claims of sock puppetry totally without any evidence. Then it took me a week to get the article undeleted (with a 5:0 vote for undeleting it i might add) and now you come at me again? What have I done to you? I even removed the whole "public reception" part meanwhile, even though I didn't have to, and now you claim "fairly wide" and "convenience" is a valid reason for deleting the article? Give me a break! Also AFAIK the 1541u has sold over 500 units so far, so please refrain from ad homs like "both current users of the C64"... -- DeeKay64 (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't see any reason to mark this article for deletion. If you take issue with one or two sentences, you should point that out instead of marking for deletion (the wikipedia equivalent of trolling). The article uses both primary and secondary sources and is almost entirely fact-based. It seems you focus more on trolling the C=64 community than contributing to article quality. -- Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.86.70 (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

— /213.140.86.70 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - It indeed seems that this deletion proposal is grounded on personal issues rather than rational ones. The nominator appears to have been editing Wikipedia actively since 2006, so I'm sure that he is familiar with the procedures on how to deal with articles that don't demonstrate the notability of their subject matters well enough. Besides, this is a kind of product where the existing Wikipedia notability guidelines can't be directly applied, so some discussion about its inclusion criteria definitely needs to take place before considering deletion. To me, a manufacturing volume of 500 units for a new peripherial of a computer that hasn't been commercially available for over 15 years makes it notable enough. I'm voting for keep. --Viznut (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - It would be a great disservice to the Wikipedia community if this article were removed due to the endless gesticulations of one singular intransigent editor. -- 67.34.98.154 (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC) -- 67.34.98.154 (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - but remove sections 'Features', 'Specifications', and the list of changes under '1541 Ultimate II' as WP:NOTCATALOG. Interested users can visit the product site for this sort of detail. --CliffC (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I linked the tech specs now, but I think the features should stay. After all that is what tells the reader what the cartridge is good for on one quick glance without much reading. That's what people expect for this sort of wiki-entry, compare f.ex. other hardware, e.g. the Action Replay utility cartridge, which is quite comparable to the 1541u. I also changed the 1541u II section from bulletpoints into text now, i think a wikipedia article on a piece of hardware should also cover different generations. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - I tagged this back in March as reading like an ad, and it hasn't improved much since. Lacks reliable third party indepdendant sources. i.e. Source to the originator of the product, blogs and a forum post all well short of wikipedia's standards --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I seriously don't know what some people expect with a c64 cartridge released in 2008, but there's little chance Tom's Hardware will review a 1541 Ultimate any time soon! ;-) I did link to one independant review on retrohacker and retrozentrale (german), there WAS also a videolink to an independant video-review (deleted by someone). That's about as good as it will ever get, sorry. I removed the "public reception" part completely, added a section on the 1541u II and the opensource FW release and removed the tech specs - "hasn't improved much"? Hello? I'm growing a bit tired of the "reads like an ad" complaints from people that have no connection to the Commodore 64 scene whatsoever - even though nothing about its success is in the article anymore. The cartridge is hugely successful (by c64 standards!), pretty much every active c64 user I know has bought one (some even several!), what should I write? That nobody bought it and nobody cares? Here's a quote from the iPod article: "Since October 2004, the iPod line has dominated digital music player sales in the United States, with over 90% of the market for hard drive-based players and over 70% of the market for all types of players." "Pods have won several awards ranging from engineering excellence, to most innovative audio product, to fourth best computer product of 2006."- Reads like an ad, huh? ;-) Oh, and btw, i mentioned this in my undeletion submit already: I wrote the article on the MMC64, too, a competing cartridge of a different manufacturer. Should show just nicely that I have no connection whatsoever to the guy making the 1541u.. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can help you out on expectation for wikipedia regarding this or indeed anything else regardless of when released and what for. See the general notability guideline in essence to make the test more objective than what you and I find Interesting, Useful or whatever, the test becomes does the world at large considered it important, interesting... enough to write about it, if not then it isn't considered notable. If you are confirming that being a c64 cartridge released in 2008 is unlikely to be of interest to the world at large, then you are pretty much confirming it doesn't meet wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The independant reviews fail as 1 is a forum post which fails the reliable source part of the WP:GNG, and the other is a blog which suffers similar problems. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the lecture, but the fact remains that Wikipedia is full of stuff that is not of interest to the world at large. OTOH, pretty much everbody I told about the 1541u was very interested. Maybe I should actually send one of my units for review to Tom's Hardware... Over 38.000 hits for both "1541 Ultimate" and "1541u" on Google show that it's of interest to more people than you claim. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No lecture - if you don't like the answers that's your problem. See GOOGLE and WP:BIGNUMBER number of google hits are irrelevant, again wikipedia has long established the standards for inclusion, ones you say you can't meet. Also regarding other stuff and people being intereted in them see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No Wikipedia rule is set in stone, and you know that very well. F.ex. there's a gazillion articles out there with bulletpoint lists - "Not encyclopedic", so it must all be deleted. I know you're doing your best to do just that, but it's just such an uphill battle, isn't it? I'm kinda tired of all this WP:BIKESHED... -- DeeKay64 (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is set in stone, the foundation mandates certain things and things like verifiability are beyond removal. " I know you're doing your best to do just that" again trying to attack me rather than address the issue of this article relative to wikipedia policy. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All that stuff about every active c64 user I know etc. is original research it's your impression/opinion which is leading to a conclusion now being presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Your iPod quote will be verifiable in reliable sources, not just something a wikipedia editor plucked out of the air. I'm glad you believe you personally know everyone involved in the c64 scene to the level or recognising their IP addresses. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You missed one important part: The section where this would matter has been deleted already. Tough luck... And yes, i know the majority of active c64 sceners, whether you believe it or not. But why am I even arguing with someone lecturing me on Wikipedia guidelines that does not even have an own account? -- DeeKay64 (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Touch luck" - See WP:BATTLE. Quality of argument relative to wikipedia policies is the important factor. If the best argument you have is "look they edits as an IP" then I guess you're right the discussion isn't worth having. You might also like to see Foundation Issues point 2. If Wikipedia wanted to stop IP editing they of course could - they don't. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BITEME and WP:DONTCARE. It's not the IP editing that's the problem, it's you lecturing me on Wikipedia guidelines while you do not even bother to register you own account, preferring to shoot anonymously from the dark. There's a reason that stuff from IPs is largely ignored - fortunately... Since when are IPs allowed to have a say in an AfD anyway? Editing is one thing, but participating in a discussion where every separate opinion counts is another. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep that's a strong line of argument indeed. I'm not lecturing you, you stated you didn't know what people expected, I answered. How is not registering for an account at odds with understanding wikipedia policy? There isn't a wikpedia policy saying you must have an account. I have used this IP for well over a year so hardly being anonymous if I called my self "XYZ1234" I'd be every bit as anonymous. Regarding if my comments are ignored or not, again this is a strength of argument issue, arguments grounded in wikipedia policy, guidelines etc. which represent a more general community consensus hold more weight than "I know it's really important and you are a nobody" type arguments. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * very weak keep Sources are very (very) weak but IAR I think we should have articles on stuff like this, it's an area WP:N falls down. Ideally this would be merged somewhere, but I've no real idea on a targetHobit (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete yet again. Still unsourced and unsourceable, just like the last time it was deleted at AFD, and not one of the votes above (which is what they are) addresses this.  Article creator has recreated this article close to a dozen times at various titles, edit warred to keep the unencyclopedic features list in the article, and lied through his teeth here and at DRV by claiming that the article had survived a previous deletion debate.  (I'm frankly appalled that nobody at DRV checked.)  &mdash;Korath (Talk) 00:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Lied through his teeth"? I beg your pardon, the issues were obviously resolved when i re-added the article 2 months later with more sources, so this time there was no deletion and the article remained online for 2 years. Need I remind you that during the last AfD, it already was a borderline case? And back then there were no sources like the youtube videos of the 1541u being made or the retrozentrale review. Before release, there were *only* forum sources, so you could not even prove that the 1541u actually existed. Seriously: What more sources do you need? Or let's even go back a bit: What in the article is of such a nature that it actually would *require* sources? Are there any claims being made that need to be substantiated? It's just a simple small article on what the cartridge is and what it does, homepage is linked, as are tech specs and a review of it (and a video of its production, unfortunately no more) - what more do you need in a simple article like this? This is not an article on Scientology, abortion or anything controversial that would require sources galore!
 * Regarding your other unsubstantiated attacks: I have recreated the article exactly once, what are you talking about "close to a dozen times"? The redirects from 1541u and 1541Ultimate? You're not seriously summing that up into one big sounding number, are you? I did not "edit war" either, i rephrased and moved stuff around, it's not just simple reverts. Also, the feature list was put back in twice, and last I looked the definition of edit warring is three times in 24 hours...  -- DeeKay64 (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I get to have one vote, too, so let me use it to sum up why i think this should be on Wikipedia: It is a piece of hardware that is both interesting for the Retrogaming and the active Commodore 64 scene, plus it has obscurity value for technically interested folks (think: slashdot crowd). It has sold over 500 units from what I know, which is more than many other items that have their own wikipedia entry (e.g. Bugatti Veyron). The passages that could be interpreted as advertising were removed, making it now a very simple, informative, straightforward article on what it is and what it is good for. There are no unverifiable claims in the article that need to be substantiated by independant sources, so the lack of "official" sources for such a semi-hobbyist project should not be an issue. Rephrasing debatable sentences in the article should not be a reason for deleting it, so feel free to edit. ;-) I'd just like to mention that the MMC64 article is the exact same thing as this article, and that has been online for four years without a single debate now, so why the issue with this article now? Also, I'd like to point out that the nomination for AfD was not based on reason, but personal revenge. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Insufficient coverage available to demonstrate notability and verifiability. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Note to all: Significant restructuring and rewriting, please re-check! Also added another competing product to counter claims of advertising! ;-) -- DeeKay64 (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly lacks the required significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. ukexpat (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Note to all: Added a lot more sources; Independant Review of the 1541u II, Several video reviews and CHIP magazine Poland on the 1541 Ultimate. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * These are blog posts without apparent editorial oversight. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 19:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, all the things you know. You have the 6/2010 issue of CHIP at hand? Cause I do. Says here: "Redaktor naczelny: Michal Adamczyk" You might wanna ask him.. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I can find no significant coverage. I am struggling to understand the comments above but also struggling to understand the article itself it needs a substantial rewrite to be accessible to non enthusiasts.  Teapot  george Talk  00:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - as per Teapotgeorge
 * Delete - sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.