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. Sandstein (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1541ultimate[edit]

I'm not quite certain exactly what this is, but its creator gets 34 unique Google hits, and the title itself gets 71 unique Google hits. Unless I'm reading too quickly (which is entirely possible; that's why I'm here) most of these pages are of the hobbyist variety, and I don't think that any of it passes for notable. - CobaltBlueTony _talk 13:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: per A7, no assertion of notability. "There is a similar hobbyist project to the 1541 Ultimate called '1541 III', but it is not mass-produced, and it is unknown if it ever will be." Yep, that's about right. Ravenswing 13:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been speedied before. A consensus at deletion review was clearly headed for an overturn of that decision. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 13:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Non-notable. archanamiya talk 13:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 14:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cartridge for the Commodore 64, just like the article says. Plus i get 5210 unique hits for "1541 Ultimate" on Google, and 582 for the creator. I dunno what you entered... DeeKay64 (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mmm, no. You have 5000 total hits. Follow that to the end, and that's 101 unique hits, almost all of them forum and blog posts. Not a reliable source among them. Ravenswing 14:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I consider a unique hit to be unique web pages; I don't count multiple hits on the same page, or subpages within the same site, to be unique. If I'm doing this wrong, someone please let me know. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Exactly, and the swiftest way to weed that out is not to look at the first page of hit listings, but the last page. Ravenswing 14:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no attribution of notability to independent and reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 18:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements I added some more information on what the cartridge is for, as that seems to be an issue for some people (doesn't stop them from speeddeleting though). I also added some more links, but I'm sorry I won't be able to provide links to the NY Times if that's what you're asking for! ;-) It's not really mainstream, but then again, so is probably 70% of wikipedia's articles! ;-) DeeKay64 (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- THESE are the TOP THREE issues: Notablility. Notablility. ...and... Notablility. What the cartridge is for is unimportant; you should be focusing on notability, as this alone will fortify the article from constant threats of deletion. By the way, the fact that other non-notable or otherwise inferior articles exist does not arbitrarily mean that we get to keep this one. If you see something wrong, please feel free to fix it. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jesus, Tony, calm down, I heard you the first of 300 times you screamed "notability" at me... Just like I heard you when you told me that other stuff exists (o rly?). Honestly: What is your problem? You've shown time and time again you hadn't even read the article before you deleted it (see your opening "thoughts"), and your reasoning is simply "I don't know what this is, but that's okay because I don't care so off it goes"... FYI: I did add the "purpose" part to improve the "notability" aspect. Does it not say in all the deletion pages I should prove why this is worthy to be listed on Wikipedia? But go ahead, have it your way, delete the article, I'm done contributing to Wikipedia. If I have to painstakingly justify every entry for boneheaded people that don't even know what it's about and don't care either, it's a sysiphus job... You claim on your userpage that "you swear you're not a deletionst". Sure feels that way to me (and to others, too, obviously!)... This is not community, this some people enjoying the power to speeddelete just a little too much... DeeKay64 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Speedy deletion is no longer an option, so why you're bringing that up again, I don't know. "Purpose" does not infer notability. Please read that criterion carefully. What makes this product prominent or strikingly unique, making it stand out among other products of this type? Was it covered by multiple, independent, unbiased, notable, verifiable, and reliable sources? Where are these references? Nothing in the article so far meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. When I click on the link for your Google search it only turned up 100 hits, but many of those are pages in strings of BBS discussions, so some of these get filtered out as not being a unique hit. Similarly, the creator's link (all I did was click what you linked up there) returns only 47 hits before one filters out the duplicate sites. It seems that this product and its creator are popular on the bulletin board arena, but haven't reached out so far as to get the notable coverage Wikipedia requires. (I'll ignore your uncivil remarks to me as it seems you have to catch up on community consensus-accepted standards for inclusion.) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You seriously ask me what makes this product strikingly unique among other products of this type? Jeez, Tony, you still haven't read the article, have you? It is the ONLY Cartridge that truly emulates a 1541! As for BBS discussions: Today's c64 users are solely BBS based, there's not much mainstream media ever covering the subject. So, by your standards, every c64 subject beyond say 1992 when Commodore died should be deleted from Wikipedia (please, do tell me about the "otherstuffexists" page again, I can't wait to read that once more!).. Have fun doing so, Mr. Notability! And please, don't ignore my uncivil remarks, i didn't ignore you screaming "NOTABILITY!!!" at me like a madman either! ;-) DeeKay64 (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Beyond that, if clearer proof of non-notability is needed, I just looked at the link for the 1541 Ultimate homepage, which states very proudly that a whole 25 units have been shipped! Whether this module is a big deal in C64 circles I couldn't say, but even if it represents a whole 1% of remaining C64 users (which is probably not the case), that'd be hugely trivial by Wikipedia standards. I wonder whether this is a WP:SPAM issue as well. Ravenswing 18:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, you'll just have to take my word on that this cartridge is a big deal in the c64 scene. Bigger than, say, the MMC64, which has had its own entry for way over a year now! ;-) The first 25 units have been shipped last week, more are going out this week, and the preorder list is long. Gideon basically had to be persuaded by the c64 scene to mass-produce it, so it's his first time he does something like this. Oh, and it's interesting to know there's a limit on how many units a product has to sell to be included in Wikipedia, i guess that's very bad news for the author of the Bugatti Veyron article f.ex.! ;-) DeeKay64 (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Look, notability is not necessarily about the number of units sold or the number of hits it gets when looking up something using google. This device marks another important milestone in C64 history, as much as the Turbo master CPU by Schnedler Systems (which was, the first NTSC-65816 Turbocard ever for the C64 and also won't get many hits in google) and very unlike some ROM-Mods for other cartridges, which were way more popular and will yield more hits in Google and which are, of course not half as notable as this device. And as long as you don't know what you're talking about, regarding this device and it's meaning for C64 history, I guess you better leave the decision if that device is notable or not to the C64-crowd. This is nothing which is in any way related to google's pagerank or number of units sold. You better trust the experts on that and these are among highly respected members of the C64-community, like Deekay, and not among some random people who happen to be Wikipedia watchdogs. wgayk, (former editor of GO64! Magazine) —Preceding comment was added at 21:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does not (yet) meet the Wikipedia notability criterions; there are no mainstream sources for this article. I am also a C64 scener, just so you know my bias. (New account, user originating from the Swedish Wikipedia.) -radiantx/pdd (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete I agree with Radiantx above but I'd like to say that the behavior of people crusading for deletion in this article have probably pushed away a potential contributor who acted in good faith. this article is fairly well put together in its own right it just happens to cover a subject with very limited appeal. And, to be fair, some homebrew mods of consoles and console devices are notable for reasons apart from the number of adherents. See wgayk above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protonk (talk • contribs) 05:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This will probably become a quite important device for C64 hobbyists. Wikipedia has sillier articles that have passed through AfD unharmed. The content is good, the device is notable, and I'm now thinking I should try to buy one. :) toresbe (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your grounds do, in fact, violate WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia cannot have articles based on the (completely unproven) assumption that this device will become as prominent a one as the MMC64 mentioned above, which has an impressive nearly five hundred unique G-hits and can be said to clear the "proven cult favorite" element of notability. It's regrettable if the creator is unhappy we're not waiving WP policy or guidelines to give this promotional article a free pass, but to quote WP:V, "... [a]rticles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." The best way to save this article is to provide such sources, not to challenge those looking to see them. Ravenswing 15:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn club. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The quality of the article is quite bad. The information is very inconsistently presented and the semantic structure is less than ideal. Instead of investing considerable effort in improving it, get rid of the whole thing now, because this device is not meaningful. --84.250.188.136 (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.