Content deleted Content added
Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk | contribs) |
Serial Number 54129 (talk | contribs) →Broadcast Markup Language: Oh no |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
:::::BTW, I think it's rather unreasonable of you to expect people to vote on the basis of '''references [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Broadcast_Markup_Language&diff=595629810&oldid=595607341 that you added after I voted]'''. I'm a lot of things, but not clairvoyant. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 16:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC) |
:::::BTW, I think it's rather unreasonable of you to expect people to vote on the basis of '''references [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Broadcast_Markup_Language&diff=595629810&oldid=595607341 that you added after I voted]'''. I'm a lot of things, but not clairvoyant. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 16:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::::Actually, everyone at Wikipedia is expected to evaluate sources before taking a position at an AfD. It not only prevents you from looking like a fool when someone adds a zillion sources that it took them all of thirty seconds to find, but it's good for the encyclopedia. You may not be clairvoyant, but I assume you know how to look for sources. If you don't have at least that minimum skill, you're not competent to participate in deletion arguments, both here at AfD and in whatever process it was that led you and {{u|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}} to pounce on that BeerXML thing like tigers. Also, I might just mention that it undermines your credibility to accuse people of canvassing with no evidence whatsoever, naming a user, {{u|Rocketman768}}, who hasn't even participated in this discussion. If you and your co-conspirator FIM want to do the decent thing here, you ought to admit you were wrong, you should withdraw your bad-faith delete position, and FIM should withdraw the nomination. That way we can have a non-admin closure and put this nonsense to rest.— [[User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah|alf laylah wa laylah]] ([[User_talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah|talk]]) 16:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC) |
::::::Actually, everyone at Wikipedia is expected to evaluate sources before taking a position at an AfD. It not only prevents you from looking like a fool when someone adds a zillion sources that it took them all of thirty seconds to find, but it's good for the encyclopedia. You may not be clairvoyant, but I assume you know how to look for sources. If you don't have at least that minimum skill, you're not competent to participate in deletion arguments, both here at AfD and in whatever process it was that led you and {{u|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}} to pounce on that BeerXML thing like tigers. Also, I might just mention that it undermines your credibility to accuse people of canvassing with no evidence whatsoever, naming a user, {{u|Rocketman768}}, who hasn't even participated in this discussion. If you and your co-conspirator FIM want to do the decent thing here, you ought to admit you were wrong, you should withdraw your bad-faith delete position, and FIM should withdraw the nomination. That way we can have a non-admin closure and put this nonsense to rest.— [[User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah|alf laylah wa laylah]] ([[User_talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah|talk]]) 16:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::::If you had actually read the original article- and if you haven't then perhaps "''you're not competent to participate in deletion arguments"''?- you would know that there were '''no''' sources; hence the deletion nomination. If in the course of this discussion people have actually gone and found them, then that is an added bonus. May I suggest you desist from making foolish claims of conspiracy? It might "''prevent you from looking like a fool"''. Sorry, but you're very quotable.[[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 16:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:42, 16 February 2014
Broadcast Markup Language
- Broadcast Markup Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced. Criteria for notability not established. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Happy to change my vote to a keep now that someone has actually taken the trouble to verify the content. This is the great thing about nominating articles for deletion. It sorts the wheat from the chaff. Deb (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe you can read this WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP before you participate in any more of these discussions. They are a waste of everyone's time, and should not even be taking place.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - It's a computer language, for Pete's sake. If rock albums are notable, and they are, this is far more so. It's stubbed for expansion. That's plenty good enough... Cesium 133 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I added five sources to a new "further reading" section in the article, which would be sufficient to expand and source it to some extent. There are plenty of others in the technical literature. This computer language meets the GNG.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep and a giant trout. This is just one big toys-out-of-pram issue over BeerXML.
- As to notability, this is an ARIB (and I think, ITU) published standard. If you watch TV in Japan, you're using it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe "big in Japan" needs to be explicitly added to WP:N?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- References to trouts in this context constitute a personal attack. It was a bad article. It gets XfD'd. You add WP:RS. It becomes a better article. Ergo the encyclopaedia is improved. That is how it works, and if you think otherwise or impugn other editors' motives, you probably shouldn't be here. Cheers. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- You should quit while you're ahead, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. It's quite clear what's happening here. You, Deb, and PrivateWiddle were in some kind of tussle over the notability of BeerXML. PrivateWiddle mentioned this article and you replied Thanks for drawing that to my attention, appreciated and proceeded to bring this article to AfD, obviously without satisfying WP:BEFORE, which makes it look very, very much like a violation of WP:POINT. You notice that the only editor who agrees with your position here is your co-conspirator Deb, who seems to be guilty of WP:CANVAS of some sort and who took only 16 minutes to agree with you, time she or he obviously did not spend looking for sources. Add that to everyone's disgraceful behavior on the various talk pages involved and it seems to me that Andy Dingley's suggestion of a trout was mild compared to the suggestions that might have been made.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Wow, there definitely has been some canvassing going on here. It was starting to look weird when User:Rocketman768 suddenly appeared with his first contribution in 18 months, and now this sudden personal attack. Of course it didn't take me long to notice the article - it was referred to by Mr Widdle who wanted it to be treated equally with his own article - and that's what he got. I make a point of following up any such suggestions by those who use the Wikipedia:Other stuff exists argument. Deb (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- BTW, I think it's rather unreasonable of you to expect people to vote on the basis of references that you added after I voted. I'm a lot of things, but not clairvoyant. Deb (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, everyone at Wikipedia is expected to evaluate sources before taking a position at an AfD. It not only prevents you from looking like a fool when someone adds a zillion sources that it took them all of thirty seconds to find, but it's good for the encyclopedia. You may not be clairvoyant, but I assume you know how to look for sources. If you don't have at least that minimum skill, you're not competent to participate in deletion arguments, both here at AfD and in whatever process it was that led you and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi to pounce on that BeerXML thing like tigers. Also, I might just mention that it undermines your credibility to accuse people of canvassing with no evidence whatsoever, naming a user, Rocketman768, who hasn't even participated in this discussion. If you and your co-conspirator FIM want to do the decent thing here, you ought to admit you were wrong, you should withdraw your bad-faith delete position, and FIM should withdraw the nomination. That way we can have a non-admin closure and put this nonsense to rest.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you had actually read the original article- and if you haven't then perhaps "you're not competent to participate in deletion arguments"?- you would know that there were no sources; hence the deletion nomination. If in the course of this discussion people have actually gone and found them, then that is an added bonus. May I suggest you desist from making foolish claims of conspiracy? It might "prevent you from looking like a fool". Sorry, but you're very quotable.Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- You should quit while you're ahead, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. It's quite clear what's happening here. You, Deb, and PrivateWiddle were in some kind of tussle over the notability of BeerXML. PrivateWiddle mentioned this article and you replied Thanks for drawing that to my attention, appreciated and proceeded to bring this article to AfD, obviously without satisfying WP:BEFORE, which makes it look very, very much like a violation of WP:POINT. You notice that the only editor who agrees with your position here is your co-conspirator Deb, who seems to be guilty of WP:CANVAS of some sort and who took only 16 minutes to agree with you, time she or he obviously did not spend looking for sources. Add that to everyone's disgraceful behavior on the various talk pages involved and it seems to me that Andy Dingley's suggestion of a trout was mild compared to the suggestions that might have been made.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- References to trouts in this context constitute a personal attack. It was a bad article. It gets XfD'd. You add WP:RS. It becomes a better article. Ergo the encyclopaedia is improved. That is how it works, and if you think otherwise or impugn other editors' motives, you probably shouldn't be here. Cheers. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe "big in Japan" needs to be explicitly added to WP:N?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)