Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OmniCode
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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of self-classification codes, like the Geek Code, out there. They're fun to make. However, this one doesn't appear to be widely used; a Google search for "LAEN+omnicode" - an identifier which should appear in most such codes - picks up only 40 unique hits, and a search for sites linking to it picks up mostly User Friendly diary pages. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nn per nom. --Huon 09:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Rob 10:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm the creator of the OmniCode, and the test used in the AfD is flawed. It makes the assumption that only English speakers use this, while the community this started with at User Friendly is extremely international. Further, that Google search only finds those whose sole language is English.In addition, a Google search for "omnicode site:userfriendly.org" turns up 17,300 hits, showing the popularity within that community.Searching Google and including the last few version numbers ends up with well over 1000 hits. In any case, I won't argue further the AfD, but votes on this should not be based on the flawed logic of Zetawoof. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "The creator has announced that work has begun on version 1.0, and tools to create and decode it, to be released before the end of 2006." We are all waiting breathlessly. Do hurry, K3wL haX0r! Delete --Xrblsnggt 02:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, I won't argue the deletion (look at my history...I didn't create this page, and I am a regular 'cleaner' of crap pages on Wikipedia), but there really is no need to be insulting. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up. The nomination is only arguing lack of notability, and I disagree with that as per KickStart. The "categories" section is probably overkill, but there's enough in there for a good stub. And I expect that there really are people out there asking themselves "what's this OmniCode thing?". Andrew Rodland 05:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. That OmniCode is multilingual and used primarily within a community of geeks doesn't mean the article isn't useful in Wikipedia. --Heavyphotons 06:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it used anywhere other than the User Friendly forums, though? (I couldn't find it in use anywhere else.) If not, then I don't see how it's notable to the world at large. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "OmniCode -site:userfriendly.org gadgeteer" (removing the userfriendly.org site entirely) shows 966 hits, and there is no requirement to list 'gadgeteer' in the code block. --Kickstart70-T-C 07:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it used anywhere other than the User Friendly forums, though? (I couldn't find it in use anywhere else.) If not, then I don't see how it's notable to the world at large. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Andrew --Robert Wall 07:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Andrew --Lord Lizard 07:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Andrew --L1nX 08:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree that the criteria being offered as basis for deletion are flawed. The users of the code are multilingual, so a restriction to English skews the search result, and a simple Google search shows approximately 24700 hits. Ayelmar 09:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The restriction to English is simply an attempt to pick up some sort of characteristic string that identifies uses of the code. If you can come up with a better alternative, please mention it. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated above, "OmniCode -site:userfriendly.org gadgeteer" shows nearly 1000 that aren't on the User Friendly site at all, which is a clear dispute of your claim that you couldn't find any. 'gadgeteer' is certainly something that is extremely unlikely to be included elsewhere in combination with 'omnicode'. --Kickstart70-T-C 20:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The restriction to English is simply an attempt to pick up some sort of characteristic string that identifies uses of the code. If you can come up with a better alternative, please mention it. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I too agree that the criteria being offered as basis for deletion are flawed.Viktorin
- Keep Due to lack of correct arguments for deletion I have been reading through the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. To make it short: I can't find anything that explains why this article should be deleted. It is not bogus, it does not insult or violate personally or any laws, it is valuable Information (in the meaning of being correct facts and undisputable, and being searched by at least myself - after finding Omnicode and knowing GeekCode, I was curious to find other codes and read through them - I don't know if the wiki page existed at this time, I can't remember, but I wanted to know - and that's the reason why it should be there. Unfortunately the list at self-classification codes is rather empty. To get back to the deletion, I find reasons why the article should NOT be deleted but even expanded (key word: stub with potential, maybe subject branch (but not a minor one since the main article is inappropriate for detail information since it's more a category summary due to its nature). -- QCS as 84.185.210.203 10:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC) (sorry, don't have a login at en.wiki)[reply]
- There is an undertone to the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy that suggests that the subject of an article should be noteworthy - not merely valuable information, but information that would be valuable in an online encyclopedia. (To quote the section on abuse of deletion process: "The deletion processes all focus on whether an article meets the criteria for existance on Wikipedia. That is, its subject matter is notable, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship.") I think OmniCode does reach that threshold and that a deletion isn't warranted, and said as much; other editors believe it doesn't and is. --Heavyphotons 11:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, if the "not notably" argument applies (which will always be a subject of discussion), and the OmniCode article is being deleted, you'll have to take the consequences and delete Bear Code, Hacker Key and Zoo Code too, rebuild Category:Internet self-classification codes as Internet Self-Classification Codes and merge the information from Geek Code and Twink Code into the new article. -- QCS again as 84.185.210.203 12:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd actually agree that a number of the other self-classification codes are similarly unnecessary. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, if the "not notably" argument applies (which will always be a subject of discussion), and the OmniCode article is being deleted, you'll have to take the consequences and delete Bear Code, Hacker Key and Zoo Code too, rebuild Category:Internet self-classification codes as Internet Self-Classification Codes and merge the information from Geek Code and Twink Code into the new article. -- QCS again as 84.185.210.203 12:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an undertone to the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy that suggests that the subject of an article should be noteworthy - not merely valuable information, but information that would be valuable in an online encyclopedia. (To quote the section on abuse of deletion process: "The deletion processes all focus on whether an article meets the criteria for existance on Wikipedia. That is, its subject matter is notable, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship.") I think OmniCode does reach that threshold and that a deletion isn't warranted, and said as much; other editors believe it doesn't and is. --Heavyphotons 11:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I also agree that the criteria used to justify deletion are flawed. -- Illarkul 11:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As a subject that's of interest to thousands of people, it's notable enough. The fact that it's only a limited community is irrelevant. Notability isn't a policy, and OmniCode has a fairly long history and a lot of fans. Wikipedia is not paper. Of course, I'm biased - I once started writing an OmniCode encoder before more important things intervened. Keep. ::Didactylos 14:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The criteria and especially the search terms for deletion are flawed. On the subject of notability (which may or may not matter), I'd state that it has a non-negligible international user base spreading beyond the User Friendly forum, which I deduce from e.g. traffic statistics for the decoder. --IByte 22:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- fails Wikipedia:Notability (memes) and crystal ball. The Geek Code article wasn't created until 2003. Get used all over the Internet, then c'mon back. -- MrDolomite | Talk 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article isn't forward-looking in any way, nor does it meet the "meme" criteria. I fail to understand how the date of the geekcode article is relevant. Fortunately, notability isn't a policy, and probably the meme proposal will fail to become policy also. We must argue this case on its merits, not resort to distortion. Far less notable subjects have become great articles, and wikipedia has room for them all. ::Didactylos 21:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny enough, if OmniCode falls under Internet meme, Wikipedia itself falls under Internet meme, too. "An Internet meme (also called an Internet phenomenon) is any kind of media that gains popularity through the Internet." - cite from the Wikipedia:Notability (memes) page. Wikipedia is nothing without the Internet, it would not have started, it would not be there, it just spreads via Internet. So, should we AfD Wikipedia then? No, of course not, since both are just *there* and the Wikipedia article is just about that. Both are more. Both are not an Internet meme. About the Chrystal Ball theory - where do you see any "future prediction"? That's just another empty word here. -- QCS as 84.185.242.18 22:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article isn't forward-looking in any way, nor does it meet the "meme" criteria. I fail to understand how the date of the geekcode article is relevant. Fortunately, notability isn't a policy, and probably the meme proposal will fail to become policy also. We must argue this case on its merits, not resort to distortion. Far less notable subjects have become great articles, and wikipedia has room for them all. ::Didactylos 21:54, 18 July 2006 (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.