Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Passive attack


 * 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 keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Passive attack

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article has been unsourced since 2004. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Both Google Scholar and Google Books show massive availability of relevant-looking sourcing. Was any WP:BEFORE done? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Lack of notability is a valid deletion rationale. If there is "massive availability of relevant-looking sourcing", it should not be a problem to add some of them to the article to solve this apparent non-notability issue once and for all. Pavlor (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Verifiability guidelines say that articles need to have sources, not just that sources need to exist. At a minimum people should specify what sources they found would be usable to show notability, but really editors should go to the trouble of adding in the sources in the article before just stating we should keep the article. AfD runs 7 days, and can be extended, for the very reason to give people ample time to edit an expand articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. This attitude expressed by User:Pavlor and you, that an article can be kept only after sources are added, flies in the face of WP:BEFORE and WP:GNG, which both clearly state that notability is about the existence of sources, not about what's actually in the article. It makes me want to refuse to improve the article until the AfD is over just to prove to you that you are wrong. It may be reasonable in some cases to ask that the sources at least be listed in the AfD, when finding them is not obvious or when there are many dubious sources and the question is whether any of them are good enough. It is not reasonable in this instance, because finding good sources is very easy and the difficulty is making a choice among too many of them for the best to cite within the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not "vote" delete, explicitly giving this article a benefit of doubt. I rescued several articles about obscure computer history related subjects from prod/AfD with much harder access to sources. That is why I don´t like generalizing comments such as "massive availability of relevant-looking sourcing" - posting few good examples is far more helpful. And this is exactly what a fellow editor JPxG did: added sources really help to establish notability - at least in my POV. Well done! So, no reason not to keep this article. Pavlor (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. A clearly notable subject, for which cursory searching allowed for a very large number of academic papers to be found as references. I've gone through the trouble of adding six references with inline citations; this took about ten minutes. jp×g 22:18, 14 April 2021 (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.