Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Job scheduler


 * 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The result was speedy keep  — nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. MuZemike ( talk ) 00:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Job scheduler

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article does not cite enough sources. Also borders on WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. The implementations section is more of a list than what should be an article.Spidern (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to have a lot of references in technical magazines, as per the Google News search page. RJaguar3 |  u  |  t  17:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not disagree that the subject is notable, I just think that this page should have more sources to live up to Wikipedia standards. Spidern (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep sources can be added. Maybe the verify tag could be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antivenin (talk • contribs) 2008-10-29 17:49:55
 * Unreferenced tag was put in place September 2007. I suggest that unless anyone adds sources now, they can do so when they recreate the article. Spidern (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and I change my vote to Delete. Anti  venin  18:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourselves with our Editing policy and our Deletion policy. We allow articles to exist in a state of imperfection.  We don't delete imperfect articles for them to be re-created later.  We build upon what exists, and improve articles, by boldly editing them.  We only delete articles if no sources actually exist at all, and it is thus impossible to write an article.  AFD is not the only tool in the toolbox.  Please read, and absorb, User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. If you come across an article that you think does not have enough sources, look for sources yourself.  If you find an article that is bad, rewrite it yourself to make it better.  Writing the encyclopaedia is not somebody else's problem.  Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Under the current circumstances, where no sources have been added to the article in over a year, should the article still be kept? Anti  venin  18:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody worked on North Asia for almost five years. There is no deadline.  I suggest also bearing in mind that by not looking for sources yourself you are perpetuating the situation of no-one working to improve the article with sources.  Please take quarter of an hour or so to look for some sources, and then come back to this discussion.  If you find sources, cite them in the article, so that the next editor to come along doesn't have to repeat your work.  This is how articles get built by collaboration. If you find multiple independent, in-depth, published sources whose authors are reliable, then the inescapable conclusion per deletion policy, is that we must keep the article, because all that needs doing is for editors to take sources in hand, hit that "edit this page" button, and make the article better; an administrator using administrator tools isn't required. Uncle G (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While in principle I agree that an article should be allowed to exist in a state of imperfection for an extended period of time, the principle of verifiability takes a higher priority in this case. I challenge this article for AfD in light of a notice for lack of sources which has existed on the page for over a year. This is not an unreasonable case for nomination. Further, the content is not encyclopedic for the reasons I outlined above. Spidern (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unverifiability means that no sources exist, not that no sources are cited. You haven't looked for sources yourself to see whether that is the case, and thus have not made a case, in accordance with deletion policy, that the subject is unverifiable.  Please read the aforelinked policies and pages, as well as Guide to deletion.  Nominating an article for deletion on grounds of unverifiability requires that you look for sources yourself.  This has been our policy on verifiability since 2003. Uncle G (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information, Uncle G. I misunderstood verifiability policy. Is it possible to withdraw this AfD? Spidern (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, altogether possible: if the nominator wants to withdraw it, it will be withdrawn. I'd do it, except that I've never learned; the only time I did it, I accidentally closed all the nominations posted on that day's log, causing confusion.  Nyttend (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider it done. MuZemike  ( talk ) 00:03, 30 October 2008 (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.