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. per policy the correct way to counter deletion arguments based on lack of sourcing is to provide some. This doesn't appear to have happened so the delete arguments whilenumerically less are actually the only policy based arguments put forward. Spartaz Humbug! 21:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FastCode[edit]

FastCode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any coverage of this contest to indicate that it meets the general notability guideline can be met. (PROD was was contested). SmartSE (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article should be clarified (or perhaps you're just misreading it) but it's not the contest that's important. It's not "covered" because only the participants in the contest actually care about the competition itself. The improved code that comes out of it, on the other hand, is quite significant and is well-known in the Delphi community. There's no good reason to delete this article just because one minor detail doesn't have much "coverage" in blogs or news. 69.46.35.146 (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the article says FastCode is the contest - is this true? IOW, the thing you refer to as "one minor detail" is the subject of the entire article, right? I may have mangled this when I removed the copyrighted text, but it sure seemed to say this all along. If FastCode is well known in the Delphi community, then it should be pretty easy to find reliable sources to help satisfy the general notability guidelines, which are required for a subject to be a stand-alone article. Do such sources exist? If so, please add them to the article or let me know about them so I can do it. If not, then what you mean by "well-known" is not the same as notability as we talk about it on wikipedia, and we should delete this article. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edited the article to clarify that FastCode is a programming project implemented as a contest. And there are five sources in the article so far, three of them from official Embarcadero sources. So can we drop the "no reliable sources" nonsense already? 69.46.35.146 (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Three are self-published and the other is not independent and they are therefore not what we consider to be "reliable" as WP:RS explains. SmartSE (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because the articles happen to be found in blogs doesn't mean they're automatically to be discounted as "self-published". They're not just any old person's blog rambling about whatever; those are links from official technical blogs from top Delphi team members, hosted by Embarcadero, the owner of Delphi. That's about as official as it gets for a major software product that's sold over the Internet. 69.46.35.146 (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is not that they're blogs - I think those blogs would be fine for certain kinds of verification, etc. But most of them are not independent sources. We need sources from unaffiliated organizations in order to establish notability. The entire premise of this discussion is the general notability guidelines; it would be helpful to read them for anyone who wishes to participate here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of something technical and used by Embarcadero (even though it's run by third party programmers) is that most articles about it will be by the people who wrote it - they know the most, after all! - or Embarcadero, since they make Delphi. While I agree with the motive behind the guidelines is good, in this case it's counter-productive and serves to exclude the most informative content.
(You can see this easily by looking at similar pages - take [1] or [2] for example. Most of those pages' references don't qualify by those standards, yet anyone who knows about either of the products would agree (a) they're notable and (b) they're good sources.)
I'm not arguing the motive; just pointing out it's counter-productive, circular, and serves to remove information from Wikipedia. I'm sure you don't want that.
Btw, I'm a neutral third party - a normal Delphi programmer, just one well aware of how useful FastCode has been. Thought I'd put in my two cents since the moderators seem to not move in Delphi circles.
TL;DR Argument is counterproductive in this specific case, it's a guideline & look at similar articles; you should add sources that know most about the topic.
06:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)203.45.22.138 (talk) David M
We seem to be talking past each other. I did not say to remove the blogs. Nobody is removing those sources, are they? I am just saying that they don't establish notability. What "moderators" are you talking about? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe by "moderators" he means "people who are always trying to delete things based on strict adherence to their rigid interpretation of the letter of the law, without any actual domain knowledge for the subject at hand, who persist in wilfully ignoring the contributions of any experts who have domain knowledge as long as it doesn't agree with their preconceived viewpoints." 71.112.196.128 (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"rigid interpretation of the letter of the law" - you mean the desire for independent sources? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"But most of them are not independent sources." Can you clarify for me what is an independent source in this case? If you mean having nothing to do with Delphi at all, then no, there can't be any "independent" sources. But the article isn't about Delphi. All the references I see are from people that were not involved in the FastCode project. To me that makes them "independent sources." Blwhite (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look at this one for example: Steve Trefethen worked on incorporating Fastcode stuff into Delphi 2007. The embarcadero.com blogs are obviously affiliated with a company that directly benefits from Fastcode, but many of those do not even significantly cover Fastcode, so they can't be used to satisfy the concerns raised in this afd anyway. Can you point to a particular blog reference in the article that you feel is unaffiliated, significantly covers Fastcode itself, and is reliable? The gerixsoft.com reference has potential, but see WP:SELFPUBLISH. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either I'm not being clear or I don't understand what 'independent' means. Steve was not part of the FastCode group.
FC was/is a community contribution. Delphi employees generally stayed out of it. They did offer some prizes for some of the later competitions. After the competition was complete, Steve was involved in incorporating a few of the results into Delphi. So he was clearly part of the group that benefited from the work by FastCode. But all 2 million Delphi users in the world are in that group. It would be like not being able to write about Office because you've used it, you're not independent. Clearly I'm not grasping where the boundary is.Blwhite (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"grasping where the boundary is" - yeah, I think it's debatable. I was claiming that this is not really unaffiliated because he is, in a sense, using FastCode's advantages as a way of explaining why his product and work, Delphi 2007, is better. To use your Office example, rather than just a user, consider someone who wrote about how he helped people install and configure Office as a 3rd party consultant and how great Office was; I wouldn't consider this to be an entirely unaffiliated party. Also, wp:SELFPUBLISH. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the decision to delete this article is based on ignorance and is being made arbitrarily. As far as I can tell, the decision to delete this article is being made by one person without any real subject matter knowledge. On the other hand, a number of people who are and were involved in FastCode are pointing out it's legitimacy. It is difficult to understand why the person with no subject matter expertise gets the final say over those with the subject matter expertise. I myself was an Embarcadero employee and can testify personally to the significance and value of the FastCode project. It is not merely a "contest", but a community of developers who use competition to provide significant improvements to a significant commercial project. There are any number of similar Wikipedia articles about similar open source projects and organizations. NickHodges — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickHodges (talk • contribs) 13:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think all anyone is saying is that the article needs references to significant coverage in reliable, independent (unaffiliated) sources. I couldn't really find any, and I'm assuming SmartSE and Whpq couldn't either. You can testify to its significance, but Wikipedia in a sense only cares about verifiability, it does not care about the credentials of its editors. "There are any number of similar Wikipedia articles about similar open source projects and organizations." - please see Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I for one don't buy the Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F. If one points to a clearly legitimate article on Wikipedia, that is a valid argument for keeping a similar page. If it isn't, well, then the decision to remove a page can be utterly arbitrary. If every character in Grey's Anatomy has a page, then it seems perfectly legitimate to have a page for every character in The Office. How could one argue otherwise? NickHodges (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"How could one argue otherwise?" I'm advocating arguing from policies and guidelines, or even, to a lesser extent of course, from past deletion discussions. Those are not arbitrary, because tons of discussion goes into them. "article x" is what is arbitrary, because no discussion necessarily went in to whether or not to create an article for Derek Shepherd, for example. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is arbitrary is the existence of other pages that are allowed to remain. I agree that we should argue from policy. How is the continuing existence of a given page not part of policy? NickHodges (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, feel free to nominate those for deletion, also. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, that's not "all anyone is saying." The original contributor has been blocked from editing Wikipedia at all. Which seems a bit harsh, considering he created one page about a free project. It doesn't affect whether the page should stay or go, but it does contribute to the feeling of overreaction here. --Craig Stuntz (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken about "feeling of overreaction". But that action has nothing to do with this deletion discussion. When I said "all anyone is saying" I meant "all anyone is saying here in this deletion discussion". Sorry if that was unclear. Also, the person who created it is not banned from editing, the block notice says "You are still welcome to write about something other than your company or organization." Just the username was against the username policy. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.Blwhite (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2011 (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.
Category