Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadcast Markup Language


 * 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 speedy keep. Although the nominator has not explicitly withdrawn the nomination, they have said that the nomination has served its purpose by improving the article, which strongly implies that they no longer seek deletion. With no arguments in favor of deletion, there is no need to continue this discussion here, which has swerved to accusations of bad faith involving some other article. Take it elsewhere, guys. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 19:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Broadcast Markup Language

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced. Criteria for notability not established. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  17:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Happy to change my vote to a keep now that someone has actually taken the trouble to verify the content.  This is the great thing about nominating articles for deletion.  It sorts the wheat from the chaff. Deb (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can read this WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP before you participate in any more of these discussions. They are a waste of everyone's time, and should not even be taking place.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - It's a computer language, for Pete's sake. If rock albums are notable, and they are, this is far more so. It's stubbed for expansion. That's plenty good enough... Cesium 133 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I added five sources to a new "further reading" section in the article, which would be sufficient to expand and source it to some extent. There are plenty of others in the technical literature.  This computer language meets the GNG.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and a giant trout. This is just one big toys-out-of-pram issue over BeerXML.
 * As to notability, this is an ARIB (and I think, ITU) published standard. If you watch TV in Japan, you're using it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe "big in Japan" needs to be explicitly added to WP:N?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * References to trouts in this context constitute a personal attack. It was a bad article. It gets XfD'd. You add WP:RS. It becomes a better article. Ergo the encyclopaedia is improved. That is how it works, and if you think otherwise or impugn other editors' motives, you probably shouldn't be here. Cheers. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  12:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You should quit while you're ahead, . It's quite clear what's happening here.  You,, and  were in some kind of tussle over the notability of BeerXML.  PrivateWiddle mentioned this article and you replied Thanks for drawing that to my attention, appreciated and proceeded to bring this article to AfD, obviously without satisfying WP:BEFORE, which makes it look very, very much like a violation of WP:POINT.  You notice that the only editor who agrees with your position here is your co-conspirator Deb, who seems to be guilty of WP:CANVAS of some sort and who took only 16 minutes to agree with you, time she or he obviously did not spend looking for sources.  Add that to everyone's disgraceful behavior on the various talk pages involved and it seems to me that 's suggestion of a trout was mild compared to the suggestions that might have been made.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, there definitely has been some canvassing going on here. It was starting to look weird when User:Rocketman768 suddenly appeared with his first contribution in 18 months, and now this sudden personal attack.  Of course it didn't take me long to notice the article - it was referred to by Mr Widdle who wanted it to be treated equally with his own article - and that's what he got.  I make a point of following up any such suggestions by those who use the Other stuff exists argument. Deb (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, I think it's rather unreasonable of you to expect people to vote on the basis of references that you added after I voted. I'm a lot of things, but not clairvoyant. Deb (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, everyone at Wikipedia is expected to evaluate sources before taking a position at an AfD. It not only prevents you from looking like a fool when someone adds a zillion sources that it took them all of thirty seconds to find, but it's good for the encyclopedia.  You may not be clairvoyant, but I assume you know how to look for sources.  If you don't have at least that minimum skill, you're not competent to participate in deletion arguments, both here at AfD and in whatever process it was that led you and  to pounce on that BeerXML thing like tigers.  Also, I might just mention that it undermines your credibility to accuse people of canvassing with no evidence whatsoever, naming a user,, who hasn't even participated in this discussion.  If you and your co-conspirator FIM want to do the decent thing here, you ought to admit you were wrong, you should withdraw your bad-faith delete position, and FIM should withdraw the nomination.  That way we can have a non-admin closure and put this nonsense to rest.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you had actually read the original article- and if you haven't then perhaps "you're not competent to participate in deletion arguments"?- you would know that there were no sources; hence the deletion nomination. If in the course of this discussion people have actually gone and found them, then that is an added bonus. May I suggest you desist from making foolish claims of conspiracy? It might "prevent you from looking like a fool". Sorry, but you're very quotable.Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  16:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you had actually read WP:BEFORE you would know that whether or not there were sources (I did and there weren't) you would know that that fact is completely irrelevant. I suggest a trout for you, maybe two trouts.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Thanks go to Alf.laylah.wa.laylah for finding and adding sources describing this national broadcast standard in Japan and in the ITU (ITU-T J.201, used in the IPTV Multimedia Application Platform). I've not heard of Now Publishers, but the other 4 sources are from reputable publishers in the EE/computing field. The standard itself, as a compromise among and approved by independent organizations, counts in my book as a reliable source. Multiple reliable sources show this standard to be notable per WP:GNG The article itself could use improvement (e.g. inline citations), but any such problems are surmountable, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable articles problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you should add thanks to the nominator, without whom the article would still be in its original sorry state. Deb (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, no. While I am generally very happy to see articles improved, as you well know AfD is not for cleanup, that is AfD should not be used as a prod to editors to clean up an article. That said, I believe Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi made the nomination in good faith. As a new editor, they were perhaps unaware that a search for sources is recommended before nomination, per WP:BEFORE. Such a search could have shown BML to be likely notable and saved them and the participants the efforts of nomination and response. As a new editor, they did not deserve a trout. But it will hopefully be a learning experience. --Mark viking (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark has beaten me to it here, but I'd agree with him. You can't possibly claim that if an action intended to delete an article by an editor wishing to delete that article has a side effect of improving it instead, then we should be grateful to the disappointed editor who wanted it gone completely!
 * Also, per WP:IMPERFECT we emphatically do not take the line that articles must be "perfect or deleted". We have WP:N instead. If notability (and not quality) is achieved, then we keep it. We hope for quality too, but if we don't get that, we put up with or improve it, not delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This article should not fall victim to the ongoing nightmare at BeerXML. I've explained GNG twice over there, obviously in vain. There should have been an attempt to find sources before moving straight to AfD. It certainly looks like that attempt was not made. I'm sorry I referenced this article in my attempts to reason with the same two users who have started this. As mentioned above, its a big waste of everyone's time. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Querulous nomination, per Articles for deletion/BeerXML and Requests for comment/PrivateWiddle - David Gerard (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly good deal of source coverage out there. And instead of trouts, why don't we talk about Atlantic salmon and Pink salmon, yummmmmy. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the improvements to the article after the nomination. Solomon7968 10:26, 19 February 2014 (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.