Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VNC Loop

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 - it could be mentioned in VNC if considered appropriate and there were sources cited, but this article isn't required for that. (By coincidence, redirecting it would currently create a "VNC Article Loop" if you clicked on the see also link every time.)Yomangani^talk 15:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VNC Loop

• Delete. Non-notable. Trivial. Neologism. AlistairMcMillan 19:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the person who created the article is the one putting it up for AFD. --Amit 02:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly true. You created "VNC Loop" as a redirect to "Virtual Network Connection"[1], then added a section about "VNC Loop" to "Virtual Network Connection"[2] and I moved it to "VNC Loop"[3]. AlistairMcMillan 03:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I created a redirect, but you created the article. Until you put it up for AFD, I never intended it to be its own article. --Amit 03:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating. You do realise that even if this was just a section in a larger article, you do still have to back up the information with sources. So if you are done trying to build up some argument that I'm wrong for nominating this, or this nomination is invalid because I "created" the article, could you perhaps, just maybe, provide a "reliable source" to back this up. Given WP:VERIFY, WP:NEO, WP:NOTE, etc... AlistairMcMillan 04:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If I could refer you to these wise words... It is the responsibility of those who want the article to stay — to establish notability of the term, failing which the article may be deleted. AlistairMcMillan 04:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom/WP:NEO. Only 99 Google hits.[4] EVula 19:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Note also that for some reason Google is still returning some Wikipedia mirrors in the above search. Also at least one article is referring to something else when it is talking about a "VNC loop", something to do with nuclear power stations. AlistairMcMillan 19:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Time and again, it has been known that Google is not a proper measure of notability. --Amit 20:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• ? I apparently made a mistake by making this into an article because I think the subject is interesting. At least at first glance. I understand what you mean by trivial, but it does illustrate something about networks, and isn't it the just a matter of two words put together to describe a loop that can occur in a VNC, rather than a neologism. I don't know enough about the definitions so maybe I'm just ignorant, of course. --Profero 20:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but please a Keep or Delete vote would be useful. --Amit 20:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It is notable. Practically every person I know who has used VNC has contemplated upon the article's concept. --Amit 20:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Contemplated"? More likely, a small percentage of VNC users have accidentally discovered that this is a possible side effect. And after possibly five minutes of playing around with it, have moved on and forgotten all about it.

Just out of interest, can you point to a single article anywhere on this subject. And by article I don't mean an image on Flickr titled "Huh, look what I did, cool" or a forum posting saying "hey, look I made a VNC loop, cool" AlistairMcMillan 20:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, contemplation isn't the same as notability. Bill Gates taking over the world has no doubt had more people think of it, but isn't an article (or come to fruition, thankfully). EVula 20:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Perhaps it is not a mistake after all. --Profero 20:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Trivial, no apparent scholarly sources to document the information. GassyGuy 22:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced. Trebor 23:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism describing trivial effect that could be acomplished using a screen zoom tool, no need for VNC or other such SW. Good joke for Uncyclopedia, though. Pavel Vozenilek 23:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess the small percentage of computer-illiterate "nonerds" like me, that even have to look up what a "Flickr", a "screen tool" and an "SW" is, must be a good joke too. But still I would like too be able to find information even if it is considered unnecessary trivial for the "knowitalls". --Profero 00:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That's Wikipedia, every second one deals with software and they forget existence of the rest of humankind. My point, without the obscure terminology, is that the effect could be accomplished rather easily with at least one common tool. (Flickr, SW means software and a zoom tool allows to magnify portion of the screen so people with weak or damaged sight could still use computer). Pavel Vozenilek 01:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don't understand how simulating a VNC Loop effect means you shouldn't mention the real cause of it. Even if we link VNC Loop (since there are such links to the undesirable term on the web) to VNC – and mention it there – we loose the appropriateness of the associative links under ==See also== in VNC Loop as it is now. It's not only the effect that's more or less interesting to different people, it's also the cause. --Profero 02:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The effect presented is covered here (not very well) in "Droste effect". It is sometimes called "recursive pictures". Mathematical approach behind it is described in [5]. Pavel Vozenilek 13:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

VNC Loop seems to be a specialization of the Droste effect, as more than one computer is generally used, and there are secondary effects that are absent in a general recursive picture. --Amit 15:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a joke, and I fail to see how a basic screen magnifier could achieve this. This shows a lack of credibility. --Amit 02:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to set zoom to make the shown image smaller. Pavel Vozenilek 13:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems like wer'e not speaking of the same thing. --Profero 15:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Zooming!=Recursion --Amit 15:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You need a tool that zooms automatically and repeatedly the area around the mouse. This adds the feedback loop and allows to create (ugly) recursive effects. Similar (and much uglier) effect could be made when the mangnifier does magnify, one can make repeated pattern of larger and larger pixels from the small portion of the screen. Pavel Vozenilek 17:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You're zooming my leg! --Profero 12:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're no longer talking about a basic screen magnifier, but of a specialized tool. I recommend you should reconsider your original false statement, perhaps strike it out. --Amit 18:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete but maybe mention in VNC article.AtomSmith 00:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and add a brief (couple of sentences at most) mention in VNC. I have to say my heart is heavy. I mean, this is probably a valid topic. It's cool. It's interesting. Downright fas-ci-na-ting. I'm completely honest when I say that, not one bit of sarcasm intended. But regrettably, I have to say that this topic doesn't really fit in Wikipedia. It's just neat, not a critical bit of knowledge. We don't really catalogue neat amusing tricks you can do with your computer. We probably need a "funny-computer-stuff-o-pedia". I think that mentioning this in VNC briefly is best we can do. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Not the most earth-shaking of encyclopedia topics, but it didn't take much googling to find usage on both flickr and slashdot that pre-date this article, so it doesn't seem to be a neologism. The article is well-written, accurate, and verifiable. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• There seems to be sufficient consensus (by multiple users) to allow a brief portion of the article in the Virtual Network Computing article. Opposition by a single AlistairMcMillan user does not hold any weight. I will go ahead with this. --Amit 14:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Seven deletes and two keeps so far. AlistairMcMillan 17:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The following eight users have recommended to either keep the article itself or have allowed a mention of a brief portion of the VNC Loop article in the Virtual Network Computing article: Abelani, Profero, wwwwolf, RoySmith, William Graham, Bill.matthews, arielCo, Qwertyca. This is consensus enough to make a reasonable mention in Virtual Network Computing. --Amit 18:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, let's go with wat Amit says and mention in VNC. Qwertyca 19:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah okay. I mean we could spend our time adding useful information to the article, but no, our time is much better spent adding trivial shit like this. AlistairMcMillan 19:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The same can be said about your time in trying to delete this. The info may seem trivial, but to me and to some others it is an interesting example of an exploratory attitude and of how using tools in unconventional ways can sometimes result in unpredictable consequences. --Amit 20:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh and lets overlook the fact that Amit still hasn't come up with a single "reliable source" that can be used to WP:VERIFY the information he insists must be on Wikipedia. It's not like we have rules about that or anything. AlistairMcMillan 19:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

VNC Loop is not a controversial topic by itself, but if you must still be so hardheaded about rules in this case, fine, I give in. You can probably put a sizable fraction of Wikipedia up for AFD using that rule. --Amit 20:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Unsourced and trivial. DCEdwards1966 19:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if this controversy fundamentally has anything to do at all with "notability", "trivial" or "unsourced". I have a feeling it is actually a collision of opinions between they who argue for deletion because their knowledge (of computing) is - or they consider it – more advanced than they who argue for keeping in value of (or just recognize) those who need finding interesting information easily (i.e. the 'uninformed' of a subject who perhaps need WP more than others, or even those who's perspective we know little about). To put it simply: what criteria can we fundamentally refer to when judging what fact should be defined trivial and withheld from 'a few' others. I really hope it's not arrogance. --Profero 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to this. So I'm going for sarcasm.

Damn, you are right. You caught me. Nominating this page for deletion is all part of my masterplan for global domination. By hiding information about this trivial, amusing for all of two minutes, with no useful purpose at all, side-effect of some VNC software from the general public, I hope to profit personally and one day rebuild the world as I see fit.

Step 1) Remove VNC Loop information from Wikipedia.

Step 2) ...

Step 3) Achieve world domination

If only you pesky kids hadn't caught me at it. AlistairMcMillan 18:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to VNC Ewlyahoocom 06:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to VNC. Amusing for two minutes is good enough for me. -Kubigula (ave) 23:06, 30 October 2006 (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.