Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTML Refresh 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 delete: prod me if you want the deleted content to merge someplace else.. Moreschi Talk 17:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

HTML Refresh Language

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Vanispamcruft fails WP:V and WP:RS with blatant WP:COI. Created by Rosswnelson, the only source for this article about a computer language created by Ross Nelson is Ross Nelson's website. Durova Charge! 03:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete due to COI and non notable standard. Though reasons are given why standard did not gain W3C or IETF traction, does not establish why this failed standard would be notable in doing so. --Bren talk 03:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep (as author) Please follow the reference to the IETF archive entry for the draft in question. This is the IETF's own storage of drafts so addresses the issues of WP:V and WP:RS. This article was added as an adjunct to the history section of the Ajax (programming) article to provide a complete picture of alternatives that exist to that strategy. As for "blatant WP:COI" I again point to the reference to the officially saved IETF draft which means the the only source for this article about a computer language is on an internationally recognised organisations web site and not on Rosswnelson web site as was falsely stated above. I have also attempted to keep the article strictly neutral and would be happy to accept any suggestions on how to improve this in the content. --Rosswnelson talk 03:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The IETF accepted this as an Experimental RFC. Since this standard did not go futher, nor be unofficially adopted by any browsers or server applications, I just can't move from my delete support. WP:N Notability is in question as the standard has no secondary sources. Yes, I understand it is on IETF, but the article was written by the same author so cannot be considered secondary. I'm open to reviewing if other reliable independant credible sources can be cited. --Bren talk 06:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I find this a bit disheartening and wierd. As i used my real name as an account name and placed an honest account of an historical happening, it is deleted! If I used a pseudonum this would not have been an issue. So much for doing the right thing. I will attempt to find other cited sources and place them in the article and will also remove my name as the author of htmlr from the item if it helps. Im not that attached to it. As stated before, this article is to add background to the Ajax (Programming) article and point out an alternative. --Rosswnelson talk (UTC) 07:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added extra cites of discussions at the time within the W3C about the submission and in web group archives. I have also tidied up the article. As the draft is in the IETF archive I still dont get that the co-inciding authorship of it and this is a problem. It was obviously submitted to IETF in 1998 and this article is a valid, honest description of it written now. --Rosswnelson talk (UTC) 07:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Ross you don't need to remove yourself as the author of the spec from the article. I'm not overly concerned over the COI that Durova raised. What I am concerned about, however, is still the notability of the article. If you check out that policy, in a nutshell, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The sources now given appear to be similar to newsgroup postings, which just doesn't cut it as a reliable secondary source.
 * The article has not been deleted yet, and there is still time to establish notability of this standard. Discussions for deletions can last up to 5 days, and there will be other editors to weigh in on this decision. If you still want this article kept, try and explain why this standard should be included in an encyclopedia. Thank you for your contributions, and please don't be disheartened as a Wiki editor just because your first article came under fire. Articles such as Ajax and other areas you are interested in will really benefit from your copyediting, as well as other tasks here on Wiki. --Bren talk 08:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I became aware of this article through a notice at the conflict of interest noticeboard, so if the nomination appears to be insensitive you have my apologies for the wording. Wikipedia does see frequent attempts at self-promotion on various topics, such as garage bands.  If this programming language actually meets site inclusion standards in some way then please add citations to non-self published sources.  As other editors have stated, deletion nominations usually remain open for several days.  If this turns out to be notable and verifiable I'll withdraw the nomination myself.  Durova Charge! 15:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete lack of independent sources attesting to significance. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete —  Notwithstanding the author's desire to promote his product, it still doesn't make the cut for notability. We need multiple, non-trivial sourcing for the article to stay. See WP:RS.   Jody B   talk 12:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no independent sources asserting notability RJaguar3 | u  |  t  17:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments - If this is kept, then it must be tagged as COI and OR. Also needs verification.  Seems notable, but as my userpage says clearly, I'm an HTML amateur (with a single 100-level college course udner my belt).  Bearian 20:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, definitely not an OR, as it is not something which exixts in the wikipedia article only and can be verified (an IETF RfC can indeed be considered canonical with regards to what it is). As for COI, as long as it satisfies other constraints (verifiability, notability, attribution, neutrality), how does it matter? --soum talk 05:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments (as author) I believe this to be notable as it offers a valid historic alternative to current client side web programming. It may have been an evolutionary dead end but there are many of them with article here. Re someone above, it was not adopted by a mainstream browser at the time as in 1997 there were no open source browsers and mainly only IE and Netscape Navigator. As for the authors desire to promote his product, well, one its not a product and two its now a 10 year old historical item. If it stimulates thought well and good.  --Rosswnelson talk 00:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have also heard of this thing, and do think it is important enough to be mentioned. But per wikipedia policies, it does not seem to satisfy the requirements to get its own article. As such, how about merging the relevant parts (dynamic update and how it is achieved) to some other article like Ajax (programming) in a History section? --soum talk 05:39, 21 June 2007 (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.