Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backup Multithreading


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Backup Multithreading

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lacks WP:NOTABILITY. A piece of free software that has been downloaded fewer than 800 times, the main source on it is its own documentation. While the actual software title is simply "backup", making it ineffective to simply Google, searching for the article title or for the software author's name with "backup" finds no cites that would confer notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not just a free software piece; it is part of the VB.NET education, much like Hello world program - DeVerm (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC).
 * The Code Project has over 33,000 articles; if something's mere presence as part of their education program confers notability, we're in for a slew of articles. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but I did not state that being listed by the Code Project article is my reason, did I? You are now trying to say that this article is just like every article on the Code Project which is not the case; this article is about a VB.NET program that was made as a spin-off from a Code Project article --DeVerm (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC).
 * If you want to save this article, make an actual case to keep it. It is part of "the VB.NET education"? Which VB.NET education? So far, we have it as a rarely-downloaded piece of software on one website. Do you have some sources conveying notability? You compare it to "Hello world", but for that I can have gnews bring up hundreds of hits for the Hello World program. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have to make a case for saving this article; I only have to show that this AfD should be closed as a Keep because the reasoning in your AfD is flawed. I do understand how that happened because the article isn't GAN material... but an article that needs improvement is not an article that must be deleted. Renaming this article might well attract some new editors to work on it. I propose "Backup (VB.NET multithreading explained)" because it is about both the backup utility and multithreaded programming. Just like that Hello World is about both that program and the programming language in which it is implemented... explaining the syntax of the PL --DeVerm (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC).
 * So your proposal is that we we make this article about two topics so that we can shoehorn in a topic with notability problems? That does not seem to fit in with Wikipedia structure. And no, the Hello world program article you linked to is not both about the program and explaining the syntax of any programming language. The article says that Hello World programs are used to explain the syntax, but the article itself does not explain the syntax of program languages. And the Hello world program does not have the notability problems that appear to be at play here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of the Hello World article is not correct IMO. I read this:
 * Using this simple program as a basis, computer science principles or elements of a specific programming language can be explained to novice programmers. Experienced programmers learning new languages can also gain a lot of information about a given language's syntax and structure from a hello world program.
 * This is the opposite of what you claim it is --DeVerm (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC).
 * ??? I say "The article says that Hello World programs are used to explain the syntax", you show the article saying just that, and use that to claim that it's the opposite of what I say it is? --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm out since I'm being told I disrupt Wikipedia by FuFu and we can't have that. --DeVerm (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC).

I find your point about the number of downloads quite irrelavent in that the article is a classic example of multithreading coding in VB.NET using Object Oriented Programming. If your focus is emperical then consider the article has been viewed nearly 81,000 times. It teaches "multithreading" in VB.NET. Just like "hello world" but more advanced teaching on multithreading and VB.NET. The article is the subject, the Backup program is the by-product. And like most good definitions the article and subject teaching separates itself from more classic examples by the fact that it is demonstratable with a useful program called "Backup". This is absolutely essential when defining and teaching a concept like multithreading, OOP and VB.NET. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howartthou (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems there is a lack of clarity about what the subject of the Wikipedia article is supposed to be.
 * If the subject is multithread coding, then the article both needs to be retitled to reflect that, and much of the content will have to change, although the Code Project article might be used as a reference
 * If the subject is the Code Project article, then the Wikipedia entry should be renamed Multithreading Backup Utility (the name of the article) and be substantially rewritten (its introduction says its about a piece of software, and it uses an infobox appropriate for a piece of software rather than for a piece of prose. More vitally, we will need to establish its notability by citing significant third-party sources discussing the article, or noting its influence. The mere claim that the article has been read more than 80,000 times is not sufficient; if that's what it took, we'd end up with entries about every article in the New York Times.
 * If the subject is the software itself, then will need to establish its notability by citing significant third-party sources discussing the software.
 * I appreciate that you think the Code Project article is good and useful; that does not, however, bring it to the level of notability required of a Wikipedia article. (To quote WP:BK, "Notability" as used herein is not a reflection of a book's merit.)
 * --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: No evidence of notability. --Carnildo (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Your point about "the New Your Times" is a bit harsh. You should consider this is a specialised subject and that relatively speaking there are not that many VB.NET students or professionals in the world. I agree the entry could be renamed Multithreading Backup Utility and the introduction/empahisis revised. But your point about "Notability" also seems harsh, again you must consider the audience for this subject matter is limited and while the article may provide a useful example and definition I get the impression that unless something is popular it just ain't good enough for wiki. Can't say I agree with your poiny around popularity a.k.a. "Notability". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howartthou (talk • contribs) 23:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with the WP:NOTABILITY guideline, then I think that this particular deletion discussion is not the best place to raise it; it's one of the key guidelines in the English language Wikipedia, and your concerns about it should probably be raised at some more central location. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence it passes WP:GNG. User:DeVerm is known for making WP:POINT-violating votes, and is again going it here. He should probably be banned from wasting administrator's time, but in the mean time, he should just be ignored. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * oh, that is nice of you; what happened to WP:AGF? Also, pls enlighten us all and show where my editing and/or WP involvement was ever brought to any board. My slate is clean my friend and it's you who should study WP:POINT again and stop your unwarranted personal attack. --DeVerm (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC).

For what it is worth regarding notibility, if you read the "forum" comments at the end of the article (at the Code Project web site), it should be evident that my work has been used as a published source to create similar backup software and is also likely to have been used as a template for authoring new threading software using OOD techniques in the article. Unfortunately those "students" of my work are not likely to have published a reference to my work. It should be obvious however that the article itself is a learning aide and that the Code Project is actually referencing my work, which I published from my laptop to the code project web site. The code project in this context is the publisher..--Howartthou (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi All, I have just "moved" the article to Multithreading Backup Utility and changed the emphasis and also added some "notability" for your feedback.--Howartthou (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I should apolgise for "moving" the entry, I did not read the deletion notice properly until just now. Hope this link helps: Multithreading Backup Utility Howartthou (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)--Howartthou (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Howartthou, thank you for revealing your conflict of interest in regard to this topic. The external links you have added are primarily forum postings, a form of self-published source that do not indicate significant notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oy Vey, since when did "conflict of interest" as a term become wikipedia specific?? And where is the notability of this new wikipedia specific term called "conflict of interest"? I am sure wikipedia is full of terms and definitions ("conflict of interest" being a perfect example of wikipedia itself inventing terms without notability. The article now meets wiki requirements better than many existing terms in wiki I am sure...I suspect you are being hypocritical. --Howartthou (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are other articles which you feel may be in violation of policies and guidelines, I recommend that you raise those issues on the talk pages of those articles. If you wish to make vague accusations against me, I suggest that you use my talk page; you will find a link to it at the end of this message. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, i have yet to understand your discrimation against forums as a notable reference?? I also do not understand how a forum posting is "self published". I did not publish these references, other people and experts did that, I don't even know them. Please clarify, I read the wiki defnition and still don't see how the references are "self published". By the way, I did not intend to make accusations against you, and if I did it is by want of a better choice of words. Everything I have said here I believe relevant to the definition in question. I don't think I need to be redirected to other areas of wiki. I am responding here to this article, as per its purpose, I remain unconvinced regarding your notability point and do not wish to digress from the purpose of this "right of reply" to your proposal to delete his entry. I believe I have revised the article in accordance with your concerns and wiki requirements. --Howartthou (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The discrimination against forums as a source of reference is not mine; it is listed specifically in WP:SPS: "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources" (emphasis added). Basically, anyone can post any fool thing on a forum; with little or no gatekeeping going on, it doesn't suggest that what is said is either accurate or of import. To use one example, one of the links you added was to this entry on a Deep Dictionary forum, where a junior member named "eneas" pasted a copy of the article, and it received no responses. Is "eneas" some expert? Some bot? You? Add in the facts that no claim is made there about the article - its usefulness, its importance, or anything but its source - and that the forum entry has gotten zero responses, and that it's on a site where no one has posted anything in the past eight months, and where the purposes of the forum is obscured (they tell you to read the FAQ, and the FAQ is blank) and I'm at a loss to see how that could be by any definition indicate notability. -Nat Gertler (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay Nat, that (Deep Dictionary) wasn't the best reference I agree, in fact it is probably the worst, but it does not mean it has not been viewed numerous times, nor does it mean that it wasn't used to find the original article. I agree that particlar reference is quite weak on appearances. But definately not "self published", and certainly nothing to do with me. Regardless, I have done all I can to respond to your concerns, I don't think there is much more I can do, and not much more I can add to what I have already said. --Howartthou (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't find any sources to establish notability and what is present in the article fails to meet what would be considered reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG / WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:48, 22 July 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.