Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octomatics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 and redirect to Octal. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Octomatics

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

Previously PRODded but recreated. PROD reason was: "non-notable project to encourage the use of the octal system (base 8); Wikipedia has an article about octal but it is not clear that this particular project is worthy of an article." I agree with that, so I propose the page be deleted. Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Request Could you please add the link to the previous prod? Turlo Lomon 06:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It was deleted and thus the previous prod was not visible. I undeleted the previous revisions so that you can have a look; the PROD reason I cited was added in revision 45061570. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable and WP:MADEUP. I was unable to locate a single source with this term in any of the library databases I have access to, including the complete Books in Print. --Darkwind (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Note The claim of WP:MADEUP is definitely incorrect. Something covered by multiple news sites doesn't fall under that category. Turlo Lomon 06:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment As per my comment below, those sites you referenced aren't news sites. --Darkwind (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - This project isn't referenced by any reliable sources, so it fails the notability requirement.--Danaman5 05:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I hadn't heard of this before I did a little digging, but I found references [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Not the best sources, but sources none-the-less. There is enough information on this specific subject to warrent a seperate article from Octal. Turlo Lomon 06:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. None of those sources are reliable, and thus cannot be used to establish notability. The only one that isn't obviously a blog or self-published website is the digitalus.co.nz link, and even it looks bloggy to me. I'd agree to using them as references once notability has been established, but someone'd have to find a reliable source for that purpose first. --Darkwind (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As the author of the present article, I am of course in favor of keeping it. I did notice that it had been previously deleted. My reason, aside from personal enthusiasm is that I keep running into references to it -- small references and citations, comments in blogs, that it is precisely the kind of thing one would look up on wikipedia. I also fully grant that this discussion about deletion is appropriate and necessary, as the article rides clearly in the grey area of the deletion policy. My hope is that you will err on the side of tolerance give it a few months to be fleshed out, perhaps probationary period? Jjunken 07:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If that's the case, insert links to those sources that clearly fall under WP:RELY. The ones mentioned above don't cut it, and there don't seem to be any scholarly articles on the topic, if that's what you intended to hint at in your mention of citations. Barring that, the article probably should be deleted until a clear case for Wikipedia:Notability can be made. MrZaiustalk 07:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC) PS: You have a ~5 day probationary period to flesh it out while the AfD is in progress
  • This seems to be somebody's private suggestion that nobody knows or cares about. Come back when this system of counting becomes as widespread as, say, Esperanto. Until then, delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable trivia. The notability bar is significant coverage in reliable independent sources, which this does not meet (perhaps because, as Mike Rosoft suggests, no-one actually uses it?). Maybe it's my nasty mind, but I can't help suspecting a hint of WP:SOAP behind this. EyeSereneTALK 20:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think it needs to be widespread---even as much as is Esperanto---in order to be notable. But some good references and maybe some comments on why it's notable would help. Michael Hardy 19:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Compromise I would be satisfied if it was redirected to Octal and included the one major link (which I think Octal already does). Turlo Lomon 01:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Compromise Strongly Endorsed I think it would be perfectly appropriate to integrate octomatics with octal, as a small paragraph mention? Jjunken 19:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - who uses this in practice other than the article's author? WP:NN, WP:NOR, WP:BOLLOCKS. Pete Fenelon 01:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Compromise tentatively endorsed It is wrong to require that someone use this system for practical purposes before considering it notable. That is never done in mathematics. It should be considered notable if it answers questions of interest regardless of whether practical use is made of it. Michael Hardy 18:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly support compromise merge. Octomatics is a proposal for the practical use of octal. It is and should be mentioned in that article; how much is an editorial decision. (I would include Octomatic Time, as well as the present one sentence link; but this is for the editors there to decide. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:08, 18 September 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.