Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killer application

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. Sr13 04:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Killer application

Killer application (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No references and I couldn't find any good ones. Although I know the meme exists, it simply doesn't merit an article of its own. —AldeBaer 18:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per other users below. Does need sources tho. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep important topic in the history of computer software. Plenty of sources [1], [2]. --W.marsh 18:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Which of the hits are you specifically talking about? Any website using the term is not automatically a source. If that were the case, there'd be plenty of sources for an article on "dog poo". —AldeBaer 15:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, expand This is more than just a computing meme, it's an economically vital concept, going well beyond software. Rhinoracer 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but prune before expanding. As it stands this article is 80% original research and unsourced opinion. However, this is an important concept and term that is applied outside its IT origins. CIreland 19:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. This isn't merely a dicdef, in fact, it seems to expand on the Jargon File's own definition of the term. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep although egregiously marred by WP:OR and WP:V problems. --Dhartung | Talk 20:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Clean up Per above. --Whstchy 00:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up per everyone else involved. Definitely more than just a computer term, and there are the makings of a very good "Where this phrase comes from" article (if it's not already there). Not quite sure that it's a "meme" as such, either. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not sure how this is a "meme". Definitely could use more explanation and more sourcing, but a notable topic nonetheless. Maxamegalon2000 05:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep a simple observation like "No references and I couldn't find any good ones" should be made a speedy close criterion; AfD nominators really should demonstrate that sourcing the material has been attempted far and wide, and it's not just "I got buried under 678,000 Google hits and 4,580 Google Scholar hits and was too lazy to sift through them and add sources to this article". Please, leave it to the cleanup; the term has been in use for quite a while now, and this clearly has potential - even in present state - to be more than a dictionary definition. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Of obvious interest. JJL 18:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment In its current state, the article is nothing more than basically a dictionary entry with some arbitrary examples and OR. With no sources I mean I couldn't come up with any meta debate, the many times the term is found on Google (and scholar) is primarily due to the widespread use of the term, which makes it perfect for a simple and concise dictionary entry. —AldeBaer 05:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And who says it absolutely never ever can be anything but a dictionary entry with some arbitrary examples and OR, therefore unquestionably deletable? Lack of imagination is not a reason to delete an article; lack of potential is. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 06:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Who could ever say that about anything? I filed for AfD because in my opinion, it won't ever be a proper article. —AldeBaer 09:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, we're completely wasting time here making any articles about, oh, any subject at all - they will all be vague random collections of more or less relevant facts that may or may not be sourceable. Wikipedia is obviously a failed experiment and we have to close the shop. Right? Look, all I'm saying is that this thing has a potential of being more than a dictionary definition with a couple of well-argued and sourced examples on different fields; I'm not saying this will ever be a large and extensive article, but it may very well be a rather decent short one - and there's probably no other logical article where this particular concept could be discussed. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
        • OK, I guess you made your point. How about merging it into Computer program with the current article redirecting to that section? Compromise? —AldeBaer 14:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
          • That would be okay. Better than outright deletion. Uruloki 17:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Rereading the article, I believe one reason I listed it here is that the term killer application should IMHO be put into quotation marks because it is a colloquial term. I agree that the concept exists and is notable, but I couldn't find any sources discussing the concept behind the moniker "killer application". So, yes, it should be mentioned somewhere, but not in its own article, that's really overdoing it. —AldeBaer 15:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Well known jargon term in computing. The example lists should be cleaned up however as they are subjective and OR. Rewrite with better sourcing. Dragomiloff 01:22, 23 May 2007 (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.