Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A2Command


 * 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. no sources have been put forward by the keep side that come close to GNG so the delete side have this Spartaz Humbug! 20:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A2Command

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable software. Article created by software creator. No independent sources and not yet released. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What better sources are there than the project website which includes all documentation, screen shots, WORKING DOWNLOADABLE CODE, SOURCE CODE, issue tracking and access to the developers? Just because the article was created by the software creator does not mean the article is any any way factually incorrect nor inappropriate. And what does "Disputed prod" mean? Plbyrd (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Original research and WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

non notable software. - I'm not exactly sure what 'notable' means, but if it means "commonly well known", then whats the point of wikipedia if everyone on the planet that shares an interest in something, "already knows" about whatever "it" is?
 * Again see WP:Original research as well as WP:GNG noq (talk)

Arcticle created by software creator. - Well, someone has to start it.
 * See WP:Conflict of interest 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No independent sources - Here's an independent voice who has no disagreement with the content and make up of the article.
 * where? noq (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

and not yet released. - It's downloadable, with source code, and is a working application. How much more released can you get?
 * As a release candidate. Just because something exists does not mean it qualifies for a wikipedia article. noq (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at how many mainstream products have "beta" in their actual name, and for how long it has been there. For that matter, computing as we know it is one giant beta test game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apl24ever (talk • contribs) 22:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS noq (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How does Other Stuff Exists come into the equation here? The author of the comment did not say "such and such is listed, this must be too!"  Just because you know how to pull up all of these fringe documents doesn't mean your argument holds water. Plbyrd (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The program does have notability within the Apple II community. I've done some work on the article, and removed the trivia section. It needs work, but IMO, it should be kept. --Bhtooefr (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How does it meet WP:GNG? New software for what is an obsolete platform is unlikely to get notice outside very small groups. Unless that notice is shown there is no notability. noq (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * external reference that caused HUNDREDS of page visits to the A2Command website. How is this not notable?  By your definition of an obsolete platform, you must have some definition of what a very small group is.  Please link to your WP:???? that defines a "very small group". Plbyrd (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Twitter is not a WP:reliable source. When was the last time Apple made an Apple IIe? Have you read the links I provided earlier that explain why this article is here? noq (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Twitter is not a WP:reliable source. When was the last time Apple made an Apple IIe? Have you read the links I provided earlier that explain why this article is here? noq (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have read them and your argument is circular. You have arbitrarily decided that the Apple II, being a discontinued system, is no longer notable.  However, the documents you point to claim that notability is NOT temporary.  So, you are in essence declaring that the Apple II was never notable!  Also, you want to attribute the scope of notability of A2Command to be a very small group, yet when presented with the type of interest a single Twitter reference can generate, you dismiss the group as insignificant because it came from Twitter.  Are you now also declaring that Twitter is not notable?  Are you declaring that all information that comes from Twitter is not notable?  You are painting with a VERY WIDE BRUSH of non-notability when prominent members of the Apple II community have already come on here and stated their support for the A2Command article to be kept.  Are you declaring yourself to be more expert at knowing the wants and needs of the Apple II community? Plbyrd (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did I say the Apple II was not notable? Where did I say Twitter was not notable? Where is your reliable third party reports of "hundreds of page visits" generated by a twitter post? Twitter is not a reliable source as there is no editorial oversight. Anyone can sign up for a twitter account and say anything they like. Individuals that could be literally anyone saying "I think it is notable" does not make it notable. This discussion is about a new software application that has not had widespread coverage in reliable sources. If it has and you can show them then the article will survive, if not it will be deleted. You claim to have read the documents but then complain that I am arguing for things I did not say. For an article to remain on Wikipedia it needs to show notability via references to independent reliable sources - articles on what these are have been linked to for you to read so you know what is required.  There are a large number of articles created daily and some articles will get through and others will be spotted and challenged. Even if an article gets through initially it can still be challenged in the future when it is noticed. The conflict of interest article also explains why creating pages about things related to you is generally a bad idea. noq (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Page visit statistics for A2Command project page Please note all of the references from Twitter.  Also not the references from A2Central.com, which happens to be THE AUTHORITATIVE NEW SITE FOR APPLE II ENTHUSIASTS. 208.88.170.49 (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Twitter may not be a WP:RS, but what about A2Central? I know it's based on a blogging platform, but it's one of the two remaining major edited news sources in the Apple II community (the other being Juiced.GS, a print magazine.) Either the Apple II itself is no longer notable enough to have reliable sources of its own, or A2Command has been covered by a reliable source. Oh, and as for WP:OSE, I've nominated ADTPro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhtooefr (talk • contribs) 18:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference supplied is just a reposting of an announcement from the creator - so just a press release. Not sure about whether A2Central would be regarded as a reliable source, generally blogs are not. noq (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How is ADTPro any more notable through reliable sources than A2Command? ADTPro is simply a well known program within the Apple II community just as is A2Command. Plbyrd (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - We are not discussing ADTPro, we are discussing A2Command. The state of other articles in Wikipedia have no bearing on this discussion (see Other stuff exists). -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not using OSE here, I'm asking what's the threshold of notability supposed to be when the target community says that something is notable, another well known program is listed, yet has no notable sources, and yet the article to be deleted has shown notability within the target community. You're reinforcing my point that the argument against this article is completely arbitrary. Plbyrd (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The standard is embodied in Notability. Essentially, there needs to be significant coverage multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.  -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't_overuse_shortcuts_to_policy_and_guidelines_to_win_your_argument Plbyrd (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The shortcuts are to direct you to articles that explain why this article is here - not to win an argument noq (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you are abusing the system to further your pneed to place your lack of understanding of the subject matter and its significance above the stated significance of the target audience. 208.88.170.49 (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: All I'm seeing here is a blizzard of verbiage from the Keep proponents concerning anything and everything but providing reliable, independent, third-party, published sources describing the subject in "significant detail". That's the bottom line.  Fulfill that fundamental requirement, and the article passes.  Fail to do so, and it must be deleted.  The Keep proponents are making a common error among newcomers in believing that when we use the word "notable," it means "I think it's important."  Rather, "notable" in the context of AfDs means "Considered to meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability."  In the case of this article, that means passing WP:GNG AND WP:NOR.  The number of page views a website allegedly gets is irrelevant.  The number of Twitter feeds supposedly generated is irrelevant.  The article creator's unproven assertion that the "target community" believes the subject to be notable is irrelevant.   Ravenswing  17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Another idea... maybe merge with Norton Commander inspired software? --Bhtooefr (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2011 (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.