Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holopedia


 * 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. Based on the article creator's comments -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Holopedia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article simply promotes someone's patented idea for a software environment. Searching Google yields only 13 results, all of them trivial. Fails WP:GNG. andy (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm also nominating the following article, which is pretty much a duplicate:

andy (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I examined the google search results. This seems to be one of those inventions that has potential to one day be notable but isn't notable yet.  Claret Ash  11:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

NOTE But wait, I specifically started the other article (for "GHCAM") so that the information could be put in its proper place, to be filed under the category of electronic file formats, and in keeping with the guidelines. (and under the presumption that the first article (for "Holopedia") might or might not be kept.) But it is a separate page, and it should be considered separately, and discussed and decided upon separately. Here I see the two are bundled together for deletion... I am new here, so I do not totally understand your protocols, forgive me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The real indy (talk • contribs) 12:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — The real indy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The relevant guidelines are to do with notability, specifically WP:GNG. In a nutshell, almost nobody has heard of your idea and there are no reliable sources that discuss it (see WP:RS for a definition). It really doesn't matter how many articles are involved - they're all about the same thing and that thing does not meet wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Sorry. andy (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * QUESTION So then the final question is "Does a published patent count as a reliable and noteworthy source? Why or why not?"  This is an important question.  What is the difference between a patent and a peer-reviewed journal article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by The real indy (talk • contribs) 15:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)  — The real indy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes, I believe a patent can count as a reliable source when discussing the subject that was patented. However, it does not count to establish notability because it describes but does not discuss. In other words, the difference is that, to be patented, an invention merely needs to exist but, to be written about in a peer reviewed journal, it needs to be worth writing about and, more importantly, worth reading about. If no one is talking about it outside of Wikipedia then how can an encyclopedia entry be justified?  Claret Ash  16:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

FINALE OK, fair enough... You should add that to your policy pages. And naturally, the reason it is not famous is that it has been held as a trade secret until the patents were published, at least provisionally. In the end, I realize it would be foolish to make a page, because then we would just have to police it for vandalism. Good Luck to you all, and thank you for your kind consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The real indy (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — The real indy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

A QUOTE FROM THE GUIDELINES In looking through your guidelines more deeply, I have found the answer... "I'd like to point out that non-notable programming language pages should not be simply deleted, but the contents, or at least a summary, should be moved to an appropriate list. I know this is probably done anyway, but it might be appropriate to mention it somewhere in this list. MagiMaster (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)"  So I should simply add a line to the list of file formats, right? --The real indy (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — The real indy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

FOR THE FUTURE How many journal articles or magazine articles are usually required for inclusion as a stand-alone article? What about awards for excellence in educational programming from institutions? How many awards would be required? We are confident that we will win more than several within a few years. --The real indy (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — The real indy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

ADDENDUM According to Google, Wikipedia functions as the most popular 'laundry list' of file formats. Programmers and users need to refer to it to find a file format, or to know if an extension is currently in use. There are well over a thousand of them, notable and non-notable alike, and only about the most popular five percent or so have pages unto themselves. So, the guidelines I quoted above make perfect sense... I should simply add a single line of text to the existing pages for "List of File Formats" and "List of File Formats (alphabetical)", correct? --The real indy (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — The real indy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Just as a note, be aware that WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a good argument for keeping or including any mention of an article. Whether or not Holopedia merits a mention or not, stating that WP:ITEXISTS and that it'd be useful for X amount of programmers does not show that it's notable. There's been a lot of useful entries that didn't meet notability guidelines for inclusion. Not for or against this page being on here, just letting you know (since you're new) that these arguments do not count towards Holopedia's inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, while you didn't quite mention this I thought I'd also mention that google hits do not count as proof of notability (WP:GHITS. The only way to ensure that Holopedia remains on Wikipedia is to find reliable sources per WP:RS that show how this software is notable. Like ClaretAsh said, a reliable source would be a news article or journal entry from a notable source that talks about the software. Blog entries (unless by a notable persona or company), brief mentions, or anything put out by the software creator and anyone closely related to him (agent, family, friends, etc) would not count as a reliable source. Promotional materials also do not count as reliable sources. Hope this helps clarify some things for you!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * As far as awards go, all it takes is one notable (read major) award. For example, if I wrote a program and it won several small and non-notable awards it wouldn't be considered notable enough to pass notability guidelines. Winning one major award would give you notability regardless of whether or not you had any articles written about the software. As far as reliable sources go, it's generally considered that you should have at least 3-5 reliable sources, although sometimes you can squeak by with less if the sources are big and reliable enough. (Like for instance if PC Magazine did an article on the software and nothing else, that would help immensely.) It's pretty much assumed that if something is notable it will be covered in multiple reliable sources. The problem with only having one source is that if nothing more is added, concerns can be raised that the product isn't notable, so that's why I say that generally you need at least 3-5. The big problem with saying that your software will eventually get more notice and awards is that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:CRYSTALBALL). We can't keep a page up on the hopes that the software will one day become notable. Also, a big problem with just listing the software on one of the pre-existing pages is that you still have to show at least some notability through at least one reliable source. I know it's hard for any program or software to accomplish this since it's not as eye-grabbing a topic as a book or latest celebutart, but it's still necessary. What I might recommend is that if this gets deleted, you should look into seeing if you can userfy (WP:USERFY) the articles until/if the day comes when they meet notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Response, Clarification, Summary Hi TokyoGirl, and thank you for the long and thoughtful response... but I think you are misinterpreting a few things.


 * 1) The original issue was whether published patent documents from the UN-WIPO or international government offices should be counted as RS.
 * 2) The reason there are no Google hits or articles on this is intentional.  It has been tightly kept as a trade secret until now.
 * 3) I submitted this page as discussing a file format, and not about the program, nor as a company, or about the future.
 * 4) We are talking about placing GHCAM as a one-line-entry on the existing page for "List of file formats (alphabetical)", e.g.
 * 5) In the end, the guidelines say clearly that "non-notable programming language pages should not be simply deleted, but the contents, or at least a summary, should be moved to an appropriate list. I know this is probably done anyway, but it might be appropriate to mention it somewhere in this list. MagiMaster (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)".

Hope this clarifies! =) --The real indy (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

NOTE Just to re-emphasize, these guidelines are about the handling of "NON-NOTABLE programming language pages"!

And thank you for all the info! 07:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The real indy (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. I'm afraid you're mistaken. You're quoting someone's opinion from a talk pages, and anyway it's about languages not formats. FYI the main page says "Programming languages are usually kept if widely used." You've told us that your file format is not widely used. andy (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply Hmm, no, I believe I got it from one of the "Help" pages, which are posted in the form of helpful opinions, which I assumed had some authority. It is not from a "Talk" page. OK, So that brings us back to the general policy on patents. ClaretAsh's opinion is very interesting, but then it is just one opinion, as you say, and there is a gray area here. Wikipedia needs to decide if a patent is considered to be a reliable source for notability. If there is a clear policy, then cite it. If there is not a clear policy, then the Wikipedia Community needs to create one, post it, and stick to it! --The real indy (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This kind of lawyering really doesn't help. As a matter of undeniable fact, however, this was on a talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes and it is not relevant to your article or to your file format. andy (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We are debating a relevant issue with regard to a specific class of sources, not "lawyering". Also GHCAM is a language with a syntax unto itself, so this comment, wherever it originated from, and although I could not find again it when I searched for it on your site, is still a perfectly relevant comment to the discussion. --The real indy (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, thanks for sourcing that quote properly for me. Much appreciated. --The real indy (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I was not sure of the authority level of the statement, so I simply referred to it as "the guidelines/these guidelines". At the Patent Office, "The Law" is the highest and most formal level of authority, "Statutes" are the next level of authority, the "rules" are next, and then "procedures" and "guidelines" refer to most informal but still standardized level of protocol.  I am sorry if I am not familiar with Wikipedia lingo yet. --The real indy (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Can a patent be considered a reliable source for notability? The short answer is no, patents cannot be considered acceptable. Admittedly, that may just be my opinion but it is based on the general notability guideline which clearly states that, to satisfy inclusion criteria, a topic should have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A patent is not independent of the subject, therefore it shouldn't be counted. And this isn't to mention that a single patent, or even a few, can hardly be considered significant coverage.  Claret Ash  10:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you familiar with the procedures governments use for judging a patent? In order to reach the examination and publication phase, a patent must be judged by one or more government agencies to be an innovative contribution to a technology or an industry.  They are judged on their contributions, innovations, and merits extremely strictly by experts in the field.  All applications are compared to similar documents submitted by experts in the field from every nation on earth, in up to eight or twelve languages, in a process that takes a minimum of two whole years.  It is a peer-review process that is more strict and more demanding than any academic peer-reviewed journal or an industry-specific journal ever requires.  Therefore, there is a perfect argument to say that patents are akin to a peer-reviewed journal or an industry-specific journal, and should be treated as such as sources.  Also, specifically, we are talking about five patents published in eight languages in 48 nations (counting every nation that works with the EU and the European Patent Office individually).  I hope that answers your challenges.  --The real indy (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * On a related note, we see in Wikipedia:Notability (books) that a book is considered to be notable and worthy of an article page unto itself if it meets just one of the five stated criteria. Criterion number three states that "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement."  In that sense, the subject of a published patent should considered notable and worthy of an article page if it has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant innovative contribution to a technology or an industry. --The real indy (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

'''Hi, Andy, et al. OK, Yes, after reconsidering, I think you are right. You can go ahead and remove the pages for "Holopedia" and "GHCAM" immediately. I have copied the text, so you can go ahead and remove and delete both pages entirely... Thank you! I will check back in about 24 hours or so to verify that they have been deleted, Thanks again! =)''' --The real indy (talk) 07:35, 14 December 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.