Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RCube


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

RCube

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

This article is a Rubik cube tutorial, one of many on the net. There is no reason to believe that this one is in any way notable, there is no assertion of notability in the article and no references are provided  Sp in ni ng  Spark  23:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. For now. Doesn't seem very notable, I can't find much in the way of sources. I have added the AfD new user warning template to the user talk page for User:Southallda as this is their first attempt at article creation. Given this, I'll have a dig for sources and notability backing - if I find anything I might change my mind.  Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  23:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note. I forgot to say that the creating user may be the publisher of this software product. E.g., see here where publisher name is given as Dale Southall.  Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  23:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is correct, I am the author of this software, my attempt was to add some (attempting to be unbiased) core details of the functionality and workings of the program. There are currently no major Rubik’s cube programs available, and i was attempting to bring details of the program which brings the most functionality (again as i believe). The page was left as a stub, so that people could get an overview of the software (as it is just being released) and could then extend the page. This software is quite unique as it is the only fully functional Rubiks cube program with 'using', 'learning' and 'solving' abilities. I am however biased (being the author) - and that is the reason why I was trying to get people to change/edit what i had wrote (with the stub and modification tags). Do you think that this article would benefit from some of the text which i have written being deleted, so that it can in the future be added by neutral parties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southallda (talk • contribs) 12:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read our No original research and Verifiability policies. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance.  It's not the place to come to document the heretofore undocumented.  What benefits articles at Wikipedia is in-depth documentation, published outside of Wikipedia, by multiple people who are independent of the subject and its creator(s), and who are reliable for their fact checking and accuracy.  Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source.  Until a subject has been properly documented outside of Wikipedia, been acknowledge by people outside of its creators/inventors/authors, and accepted into the general corpus of human knowledge, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On the main wikipedia page for the Rubik's Cube there is a section on software, and it does not seem right for Wikipedia to have a section on software, but then fail to give even a single example. As i noted previously; there is no piece of software availible which is substancially more notable, although a fair few have been around for a while. Maybe some of the content should be cut, with some more references being added to the information availible on the website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southallda (talk • contribs) 20:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. There was a list in the Rubik's cube article at one time. It got out of hand and was moved to a separate page.  That page was AfD'd, discussion here.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  23:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - although the author meant well in adding the article, there's simply co coverage in reliable sources to establish this as a notable piece of software -- Whpq (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:53, 4 November 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.