Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The SWoRD System

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 Speedy deleted, by request of article author. The Anome 06:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The SWoRD System

According to article text [1] (reference subsequently deleted by the author), this article about a software project is written by its author. WP:NOT a vehicle for self-publicity. There appear to be numerous other far more notable systems called the SWORD system: this one gets only 8 Google hits [2], of which one is this article and two are on its author's homepage.

• Delete: self-publicity about an apparently nn software project. -- The Anome 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment while the article is horrid, there are inline references - that is all WilyD 18:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Some of the comments seem insulting. A google search cannot define the verifiability of a topic especially when the search is wrong and from those who do not know the content.

  There is no other system called the SWoRD system other than this one in the software categories. The reason we put it as the SWoRD system in Wikipedia is because sword is a general term that already is used. Here is another google search. [3]. You will see about 10 pages-long hits.

  I am very willing to delete the article.

  However you should understand we scaholars publicize our research and its results for public services and not for self-publicity. And we use our names to put professional credibility to the findings.

  Sorry about the inline reference I should edit the article but the editing was undergo. but I wonder now do i need to if the article is doomed to be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksthink (talk • contribs) 2006-08-09 21:29:56

  • The onus is on you to cite sources. If no sources are cited and editors cannot find any sources after doing their best to locate some, then an article is unverifiable. If the sources don't already contain the analysis, synthesis, or documentation presented by the article, then it is original research.

    we use our names to put professional credibility to the findings — There was an encyclopaedia project to do that. It failed. Here at Wikipedia, where "anyone can edit", we know that relying upon the reputations of editors is impractical and in the overwhelming majority of cases outright impossible. Therefore we employ Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you have come to Wikipedia expecting "Trust me, I'm a doctor." to work here, then you have come here with a false expectation. Uncle G 00:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Response This comment is helpful. In fact I was following your comments by citing sources but the following comment from Xrblsnggt seemed to make me uncomfortable. I may need more practice of writing for laypeople. --ksthink

• Delete as gibberish. I read the first 5 paragraphs and still have no idea what this is. Just a bunch of ivory tower buzzwords. --Xrblsnggt 03:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Response Very sorry for putting gibberish. I removed the article as you wish. --ksthink
• Delete per not a webhosting site, please use sourceforge.net. And now it's been blanked by the author, does that become a speedy requested deletion? — MrDolomite | Talk 04:00, 10 August 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.